sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bat, Loggerhead shrike

Bird and Conservation Strategy

Gemini Solar Project N-84631

Clark County, Nevada

Prepared for: Arevia Power & Solar Partners XI, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Valley of Fire, LLC)

Prepared by: Phoenix Biological Consulting

December 2019

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 2 1.2 Regulatory Setting ...... 2 2.0 Baseline Conditions ...... 6 2.1 Background Review ...... 6 2.2 Existing Conditions...... 12 2.3 Baseline Surveys ...... 15 3.0 Risk Assessment ...... 28 3.1 Direct Impacts ...... 28 3.2 Indirect Impacts ...... 31 3.3 Potential Impacts to Special-status Avian and Bat Species ...... 32 4.0 and Bat Conservation Measures ...... 42 4.1 Project Siting ...... 42 4.2 General Design Features for Ecological Resources ...... 43 4.3 Facility Design and Construction ...... 44 4.4 Operations and Maintenance ...... 48 4.5 Reclamation and Decommissioning ...... 50 4.6 Roles and Responsibilities of Key Personnel ...... 50 4.7 Exclusion Zones ...... 51 5.0 Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring...... 52 5.1 Construction Monitoring ...... 53 5.2 Post-construction Avian and Bat Fatality Monitoring ...... 54 6.0 Post-construction Reporting ...... 55 7.0 References ...... 56

Exhibit Exhibit 1. Gemini Solar Project Location ...... 3 Exhibit 2. Gemini Solar Project Study Area ...... 4 Exhibit 3. Avian Point Count Transects in the Gemini Study Area ...... 19 Exhibit 4. Number of Individuals of the Nine Most Common Species Detected during Point Count Surveys in the Gemini Study Area ...... 21 Exhibit 5. Burrowing Detections in the Gemini Study Area ...... 27

Tables Table 1. Special-status and with potential to occur in the Study Area...... 7 Table 2. Number of known raptor and raven nests within 10 miles of the Study Area (NDOW 2017)...... 12 Table 3. Average monthly precipitation and temperature from Valley of Fire State Park...... 13 Table 4. Avian species observed during baseline surveys in the Study Area...... 16 Table 5. Avian point count survey results in the Gemini Study Area...... 18 Table 6. Number of detections and individuals of the nine most common species detected during point count surveys in the Gemini Study Area...... 20 Table 7. Total species and birds per point and per season in the Gemini Study Area...... 20 Table 8. Avian point count methods used for the Playa, Silver State South, and Gemini solar projects. .. 22 Table 9. Comparison of results of avian point count sampling between the Playa Solar, Silver State Solar, and Gemini Solar projects...... 23 Table 10. Burrowing owl detections in the Gemini Study Area ...... 25 Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 i

Appendices Appendix A: Gemini Solar Project Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring Plan Appendix B: Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Survey Report for the Gemini Solar Project

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ac alternating current AOU American Ornithologists’ Union Applicant Arevia Power & Solar Partners XI, LLC Avian-Solar Working Group Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group BBCM Bird and Bat Conservation Measure BBCS Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BLM Bureau of Land Management CNRFC Nevada River Forecast Center DOE Department of Energy EO Executive ESA Endangered Species Act GBBO Great Basin Bird Observatory gen-tie generation tie GPS global positioning system I-15 Interstate 15 kV kilovolt LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power PBC Phoenix Biological Consulting PEIS Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement Project Gemini Solar Project PV photovoltaic MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU memorandum of understanding MW megawatt NAC Nevada Administrative Code NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NRS Nevada Revised Statutes NWS COOP National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program O&M operations and maintenance OHV off-highway vehicle ROD record of decision ROW right-of-way SCP Species of Conservation Priority SEZ Solar Energy Zone SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USDOI United States Department of the Interior USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WEAP worker environmental awareness program

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 iii

1.0 Introduction

This Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) was developed to analyze the potential impacts to birds and bats from the proposed Gemini Solar Project (Project) and to propose conservation measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts. This report is comprised of the following sections: (1) relevant background and Project information, including the regulatory setting and the roles and responsibilities of the bird and bat biologists working on the Project; (2) methods and results of an assessment of the baseline conditions; (3) a risk assessment of Project impacts to birds and bats; (4) proposed risk reduction and conservation measures; and, (5) proposed construction and post- construction monitoring, including an Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring Plan (Appendix A).

The proposed Project is being undertaken by Solar Partners XI, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Valley of Fire, LLC (the Applicant). The Project is located on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the northeastern portion of the Mojave Desert; approximately 33 miles northeast of the Las Vegas metropolitan area, in an unincorporated area of Clark County, Nevada (Exhibit 1). The Project site is situated immediately south of the Moapa River Indian Reservation and less than a half mile southeast of Interstate 15 (I-15) within the Piute Point and Dry Lake United States Geographical Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.

This Project includes the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 690-megawatt (MW) alternating current (MWac) photovoltaic (PV) solar project and ancillary facilities. Project components include on-site facilities, off-site facilities, and temporary facilities needed during Project construction. The major on-site facilities are comprised of solar array blocks, substations, and operations and maintenance (O&M) facilities. Each array block would have an integrated battery energy storage system, inverters, and medium voltage transformers. Electricity generated by the Project would be interconnected to the NV Energy transmission system via overhead generation tie (gen- tie) lines extending from the Project switchyards to NV Energy’s Crystal Substation, located less than 4 miles west of the Project. The gen-tie lines would consist of a 230-kilovolt (kV) circuit for delivery of 440 MW to NV Energy Balancing Authority and a 500 kV circuit for delivery of 250 MW to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) 500 kV transmission line (N-10683) at the Harry Allen Substation connected through Crystal Substation. Additional elements to the proposed solar energy facilities include a 34.5-KV overhead and underground collector line, a 2-acre O&M area, switchyards, internal access roads, access roads along gen-tie lines, a perimeter road, perimeter fencing, three substations, water storage tanks for fire protection, and improvements to the existing NV Energy facilities to support interconnection. During construction and operations, water could be obtained through the purchase of an existing appropriation that is accessed through a new well on the Project site, a permanent water pipeline from the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza, or via trucking water onto the site.

Baseline biological inventory surveys were conducted by Phoenix Biological Consulting (PBC) throughout the Project area in 2017 and 2018. A larger area encompassing 10,670 acres (4,318 hectares) was surveyed in order to define alternative configurations of approximately 7,100 acres (2,873 hectares) that reduce environmental effects. Nine separate polygons were identified, referred to as development areas A, B, C, D, E, F, G, B1, and B2. The nine areas (A-G, B1 and B2), a buffer area surrounding the development areas, and all proposed gen-tie lines were surveyed during the baseline biological surveys and are collectively referred to as the Study Area in this report (Exhibit 2).

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 1

One of the alternatives identified during the environmental process was the Hybrid Alternative (BLM’s preferred alternative). Six of the development areas comprise the Hybrid Alternative (A, B, C, D, E, and B1) (Exhibit 2). An alternative method of site development, known as mowing, would be implemented across approximately 65 percent of the solar array areas (approximately 4,460 acres) and the remaining 35 percent (approximately 2,351 acres) of the site would be developed using a process known as “disk and roll” or “traditional development methods” where vegetation is removed through disking and compacting the soils. Vegetation in the mowed portion of the Project would be maintained at a height of 24 inches but no less than 18 inches where justified, during both construction and operation. The mowing method preserves the vegetation including the root and seed base in the topsoil with no topsoil removal. Land contours would be maintained throughout the site.

Under the Hybrid Alternative, the Project would require various levels of temporary and long-term or permanent disturbance to approximately 7,100 acres associated with the solar facility. Impacts include approximately 2,600 acres of permanent disturbance (vegetation removed), 4,460 acres of permanent disturbance (vegetation maintained), and 51 acres of temporary disturbance. Permanent disturbances requiring vegetation removal include the traditionally developed solar array areas, O&M building, substations, perimeter and north-south connecting access roads, internal access roads, temporary water ponds, equipment areas, and the gen-tie lines and associated access roads. Permanent disturbance areas where vegetation will be maintained are the mowed areas of the array. The Hybrid Alternative would directly or indirectly disturb approximately 7,062 acres. Permanently disturbed areas would include the solar facility (7,039 acres) and gen-tie lines and access roads (24 acres).

1.1 PURPOSE A BBCS is a project-specific plan that is recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for all renewable energy projects that may impact bird and bat species. The BBCS includes a summary of the existing biological conditions of the proposed Project location and an assessment of the risks the proposed Project may pose to bird and bat species. The purpose of the BBCS is to document the conservation measures that may be implemented to reduce, avoid, or mitigate impacts to birds and bats. The BBCS also outlines a standardized approach to monitoring for avian and bat fatalities that will be used during construction and post-construction monitoring, the methods and results of which will be comparable between other large-scale solar facilities in order to better understand and address the risks of large-scale solar projects to birds and bats.

1.2 REGULATORY SETTING This BBCS is guided by federal and state laws and regulations that apply to the Project and offer protections to birds and bats. These regulations include the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), the BLM Manual 6840 - Special Status Species Management, and Nevada State Codes. Each are discussed in detail below.

Endangered Species Act The ESA defines and lists species as “endangered” or “threatened,” and provides regulatory protection and conservation for listed species. The federal ESA provides a program for conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species. Section 7(a)(2) directs all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carryout does not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed designated critical for listed species.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 2

Exhibit 1. Gemini Solar Project Location

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 3

Exhibit 2. Gemini Solar Project Study Area

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 4

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) The MBTA states that it is unlawful to “pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take capture or kill; possess; offer to or sell, barter, purchase, or deliver; or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, or received any native migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product.” The MBTA is enforced by USFWS and protects all MBTA-listed migratory birds, including their nests and eggs, within the United States from intentional take. Based on recent United States Department of Interior (USDOI) Memorandum, the MBTA has been re-interpreted to allow incidental take for commercial projects; only intentional killing of birds, such as hunting or trapping, can be prosecuted (USDOI 2017).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) The BGEPA prohibits the take, defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb,” of any bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The USFWS has recently published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Eagle Rule Revision (USFWS 2016), which addresses BGEPA regulations regarding incidental take permits for bald and golden eagles. The BLM also provides specific guidance for renewable energy projects in their Instructional Memorandum 2010-156, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – Golden Eagle National Environmental Policy Act and Avian Protection Plan Guidance for Renewable Energy (BLM 2010).

Executive Order (EO) 13186 (66 Federal Register 3853, January 17, 2001) A 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BLM and USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds was entered into in response to EO 13186, entitled “Responsibilities of Federal agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” The MOU outlines a collaborative approach to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations, but does not alter the agencies legal obligations under the MBTA or BGEPA and does not authorize the take of migratory birds.

BLM Manual 6840 - Special Status Species The purpose of manual is to provide policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM special-status species and the ecosystems upon which they depend on BLM-administered lands. BLM special-status species are: 1) species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA, and 2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA; those in the latter category are designated as BLM sensitive. A list of Special Status Species in the planning area can be found in the most current Resource Management Plan for the Southern Nevada District Office.

Nevada State Codes Under Nevada law and regulation, any wildlife receiving the distinction of fully protected species may not be captured, removed, or destroyed at any time except with special permit as provided under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 503.584-503.589 and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 503.093. Section 503.095 indicates that protected species include wildlife species that are classified as sensitive, threatened, or endangered by Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), and that an appropriate license, permit, or authorization is required to hunt, take, or possess protected wildlife (NRS 501.105, 501.181).

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 5

2.0 Baseline Conditions

2.1 BACKGROUND REVIEW The Project is located 5 miles east of the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) identified in the Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (BLM and Department of Energy [DOE] 2010, 2012). This BBCS relies on the applicable information from the Draft and Final Solar PEIS (BLM and DOE 2010, 2012) on birds and bats, including special-status species. Of note, the application for this Project pre-dates the Record of Decision (ROD) for the PEIS and is thereby not subject to the conditions of the ROD. This BBCS also draws from the BBCSs prepared for the Playa Solar Project (Playa Solar LLC 2016) and the Silver State South Solar Project (Silver State South LLC 2013); the Playa Solar Project is located within the Dry Lake SEZ approximately 6 miles west of the Project.

Special-status Avian and Bat Species Special-status birds and bats that are known to occur or may occur in the Study Area are listed in Table 1. A total of 42 special-status birds and 15 special-status bats have at least some likelihood to occur in the Study Area. Of the 42 bird species, three are federally listed, three are state listed, two are state sensitive species, seven are ranked S1 (critically imperiled) or S2 (imperiled) in the state of Nevada, 39 are state Species of Conservation Priority (SCP), and 18 are BLM-designated sensitive species (Table 1). Ten of the special-status birds are known to occur in the Study Area, one is likely to occur, six are moderately likely to occur, and 25 are unlikely to occur. Of the 15 special-status bat species, none are federally listed, one is state listed, three are state sensitive species, six are ranked S1 (critically imperiled) or S2 (imperiled) in the state of Nevada, four are state protected species, eight are state SCP, and all are BLM-designated sensitive species (Table 1). Seven of the 15 special-status bats are likely to occur and eight are moderately likely to occur.

Ten special-status birds are known to be present in the Study Area; of these, four are expected only during migration (American avocet [Recurvirostra americana], Swainson’s [ swainsoni], sage thrasher [Oreoscoptes montanus], and Brewer’s sparrow [Spizella breweri]), two are resident to the region but not expected to nest in the Study Area (golden eagle and prairie [Falco mexicanus]), one has some potential to nest in the Study Area (burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia]), and two are known to nest in the Study Area (loggerhead [ ludovicianus] and Le Conte’s thrasher [Toxostoma lecontei]). The final special-status bird present in the Study Area is the sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli); however, in 2013, the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) split the species sage sparrow into two species and assigned both a new genus: Bell’s sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli) and sagebrush sparrow (A. nevadensis); NDOW currently lists the former species, sage sparrow, as a SCP and has not distinguished between the two new species (NDOW 2012). Both Bell’s and sagebrush sparrows have the potential to occur on the Study Area, but while Bell’s sparrow may breed in the Study Area, sagebrush sparrow is only expected during the winter. The two are very difficult to distinguish from one another and for the purposes of the surveys conducted for this Project, the two species are treated as one complex, referred to throughout this report as “Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow” and are considered special-status.

One special-status bird, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is considered likely to occur in the Study Area. Peregrine would not be expected to nest in the Study Area but may forage there or pass by during migration.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 6

Six special-status species have a moderate likelihood to occur in the Study Area including (Buteo regalis), Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale), phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), and Scott’s oriole (Icterus parisorum). All of these species could utilize the Study Area but only Bendire’s thrasher, crissal thrasher, and phainopepla have any likelihood of nesting there (Table 1).

The remaining 25 birds are all unlikely to occur and are primarily species that could pass over the Study Area during migration but are not expected to utilize the Study Area. These include the federally endangered, Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus yumanensis) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and the federally threatened yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (Table 1).

Of the 15 special-status bat species with some likelihood to occur in the Study Area, seven are likely to occur and eight have a moderate likelihood to occur. The seven species that are likely to occur include six species that are generally resident to the region ( [Antrozous pallidus], Townsend’s big-eared bat [ townsendii], [Myotis californicus], [Myotis yumanensis], [Parastrellus hesperus], and Brazilian free-tailed bat [ brasiliensis]) and one migratory species ( [ cinereus]) (Table 1). The eight species with a moderate likelihood to occur include seven primarily resident bats ( [Euderma maculatum], [ fuscus], Allen’s big-eared bat [Idionycteris phyllotis], California leaf-nosed bat [ californicus], fringed bat [Myotis thysanodes], silver-haired bat [Lasionycteris noctivagans], and big free-tailed bat [ macrotis]) and one migratory species (greater [ perotis]) (Table 1). Some of these special-status bat species may roost in the upper reaches of the California Wash, outside of the Study Area, in the small to medium sized caliche along the wash banks (P. Brown pers. comm., September 2018). However, the area, in general, lacks suitable roosting sites, such as caves, cliffs, rocky areas, buildings, bridges, other structures, and trees.

Table 1. Special-status birds and bats with potential to occur in the Study Area. Status Species (Federal Likelihood to Occur State) BIRDS northern pintail -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Anas acuta SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. canvasback -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Aythya valisineria SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. redhead -- Unlikely – Migrant or Resident. Suitable habitat not present in Aythya americana SCP the Study Area, potential to occur incidentally. common loon -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Gavia immer SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. American white pelican -- Unlikely – Migrant or Resident. Suitable habitat not present in Pelicanus SCP the Study Area, potential to occur incidentally. erythrohynchos Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study white-faced ibis -- Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Observed at Plegadis chihi SCP perennial drainage near Moapa Piute Travel Plaza (approximately 0.7 mile north of the Study Area). Present – Migrant. Not expected to breed in the Study Area, but Swainson’s hawk BLM-S a passing migrant Swainson’s hawk was observed during a point Buteo swainsoni SCP count survey in May. Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 7

Status Species (Federal Likelihood to Occur State) ferruginous hawk BLM-S Moderate – Migrant or Winter Resident. Known to occur in Clark Buteo regalis S-S2, SCP County. Present – Resident. There’s no nesting habitat within the Study Area, but there are a number of historical nests documented within 10 miles (16 km) of Dry Lake SEZ. Golden eagles were golden eagle BLM-S, BGEPA observed during the desert tortoise survey in September/October Aquila chrysaetos SCP 2017 and two active nests were located approximately 2 and 6 miles, respectively, from the Study Area during the golden eagle surveys in 2018 (Appendix B). bald eagle Unlikely – Resident or Migrant. Primarily found in Nevada during BLM-S, BGEPA Haliaeetus the winter months, November through March; small breeding SE, SCP leucocephalus population. Relatively common around Lake Mead. Likely – Resident or Migrant. Year-round resident of region; no peregrine falcon BLM-S nesting habitat present within the Study Area; however, potential Falco peregrinus anatum SE, S-S2, SCP to hunt or migrate over the Study Area. Present – Resident. No nesting habitat within the Study Area; however, there are several known nests within 10 miles (16 km) prairie falcon -- of the Dry Lake SEZ and prairie falcon were observed during the Falco mexicanus SCP desert tortoise survey in September/October 2017 and during the golden eagle surveys in 2018. Ridgway’s rail Unlikely – Migrant or Resident. Suitable habitat not present in FE, BLM-S Rallus obsoletus the Study Area, very limited potential to occur during spring/fall SE, S-S1, SCP yumanensis migration. Known to occur in the Muddy River. western snowy plover BLM-S Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Charadrius nivosus SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. nivosus Present – Migrant. Observed in the stock pond in Area B; American avocet -- breeding habitat not present in the Study Area, potential to occur Recurvirostra americana SCP during spring/fall migration. long-billed curlew -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Numenius americanus SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. long-billed dowitcher -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Limnodromus SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. scolopaceus western sandpiper -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Calidris mauri SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. black tern -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Chlidonias niger SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Wilson’s phalarope -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Phalaropus tricolor SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study yellow-billed cuckoo FT, BLM-S Area, very limited potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Coccyzus americanus S-S1, SCP Semi-regular breeder along Muddy River (GBBO 2010). Present – Resident. This species likely occupies the area year- round and is a summer breeding resident of region; observed burrowing owl BLM-S within the Study Area in September/October 2017 during desert Athene cunicularia SCP tortoise surveys, in December 2017 during a point count survey, and observed potentially nesting during desert tortoise surveys in April/May 2018. Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 8

Status Species (Federal Likelihood to Occur State) short-eared owl -- Unlikely – Migrant or Winter Resident. Suitable habitat not Asio flammeus SCP present in the Study Area, potential to occur incidentally. common nighthawk -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Chordeiles minor SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. rufous -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Selasphorus rufus SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. olive-sided flycatcher -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Contopus cooperi SCP Area, potential to occur during spring/fall migration. southwestern willow Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study flycatcher FE Area, very limited potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Empidonax traillii SE, S-S1, SCP Known to breed along the Muddy River (GBBO 2010). extimus Great Basin willow flycatcher BLM-S Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Empidonax traillii -- Area, very limited potential to occur during spring/fall migration. adiastus Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Bell’s vireo -- Area, very limited potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Vireo bellii SCP Known to breed along the Muddy River (GBBO 2010). pinyon jay BLM-S Unlikely – Resident. No suitable habitat in the Study Area; could Gymnorhinus SCP occur incidentally. cyanocephalus bank swallow -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study riparia riparia SCP Area, limited potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Present – Resident. Observed nesting in the Study Area during BLM-S desert tortoise surveys in March 2018; also observed during Lanius ludovicianus SS, SCP October and December 2017 and May 2018 point count surveys and during the fall 2017 desert tortoise survey. Virginia’s warbler -- Unlikely – Migrant. Breeding habitat not present in the Study Oreothlypis virginiae SCP Area, limited potential to occur during spring/fall migration. Present – Migrant. Passage migrant observed during desert sage thrasher BLM-S tortoise surveys in September/October 2017; unlikely to breed in Oreoscoptes montanus SS, SCP the Study Area, prefers sagebrush . Moderate – Resident. Year-round resident of region; known to Bendire’s thrasher BLM-S occur in Clark County; nesting and foraging habitat present within Toxostoma bendirei S-S1, SCP the Study Area. Present – Resident. Observed nesting in the Study Area during the desert tortoise survey in April/May 2018; also observed Le Conte’s thrasher BLM-S during point count surveys in May 2018 and October, and Toxostoma lecontei S-S2, SCP December 2017, as well as in September/October 2017 during the desert tortoise survey. Moderate – Resident. Year-round resident of region; known to crissal thrasher BLM-S occur in Clark County; nesting and foraging habitat present within Toxostoma crissale -- the Study Area; however, this species is rare and has a spotty distribution. Moderate – Summer Resident. Summer breeder in the region; phainopepla BLM-S known to occur in Clark County; nesting and foraging habitat Phainopepla nitens -- present within the Study Area.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 9

Status Species (Federal Likelihood to Occur State) Present – Resident. Breeder and winter resident. Bell’s/sagebrush Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow complex observed in Study Area during sparrow complex -- point count surveys in May 2018 and October and December Artemisiospiza SCP 2017 and during desert tortoise surveys and botanical surveys in belli/nevadensis April and May 2018. Present – Migrant or Winter Resident. Passage migrant observed Brewer’s sparrow BLM-S during desert tortoise surveys in September/October 2017; also Spizella breweri SCP observed during May 2018 point count survey. Unlikely to breed in the Study Area, prefers sagebrush habitats. Moderate – Migrant. Year-round resident of arid shrublands; black-chinned sparrow -- unlikely to breed in the Study Area, prefers higher elevation Spizella atrogularis SCP chaparral and brushy habitats. Moderate – Migrant. Could pass through Study Area, but not Scott’s oriole -- expected to breed there – breeds in higher elevation habitats or Icterus parisorum SCP palm oases. BATS Likely – Resident. Year-round resident in the region. Roosts in pallid bat BLM-S rock outcrops, under rock overhangs, caves, mine tunnels, Antrozous pallidus SP buildings, bridges, and tree hollows. May roost in caliche caves along upper reaches of California Wash. Townsend’s big-eared Likely – Resident. Year-round resident in the region; roosts in BLM-S bat mines, caves, and other -like space. May roost in caliche SS, S-S2, SCP Corynorhinus townsendii caves along upper reaches of California Wash. Moderate - Resident. Year-round resident in the region but big brown bat BLM-S uncommon in hot desert environs unless adjacent to water; Eptesicus fuscus -- roosts in buildings, caves, mines, and trees. May roost in caliche caves along upper reaches of California Wash. Moderate – Resident. Year-round resident in the region, near spotted bat BLM-S forests and shrubland habitats; typically roosts in cracks and Euderma maculatum ST, S-S2, SCP crevices in cliff faces but may also use mines and caves and possibly buildings. Not expected to roost in the Study Area. Moderate – Migrant. Summer resident in the region; uses greater western mastiff BLM-S crevices in rock outcroppings and cliff faces, tunnels and tall bat Eumops perotis SS, S-S1 buildings for roosting. No suitable roosting habitat in the Study Area. Moderate – Resident. Inhabits mountainous areas and uses a variety of habitats including Mojave Desert scrub. Roosts are Allen’s big-eared bat BLM-S various and include mine shafts, boulder piles, sandstone Idionycteris phyllotis SP, SCP crevices, lava beds, and under bark of trees. Foraging habitat is present in the Study Area, but roosting is not expected. silver-haired bat Moderate – Resident. Year-round resident in the region, but BLM-S Lasionycteris generally prefers higher elevation, wooded areas; roosts mainly SCP noctivagans in trees. Not expected to roost in the Study Area. hoary bat BLM-S Likely – Migrant. Common migrant through the region; roosting Lasiurus cinereus SCP habitat (typically trees) is generally absent from the Study Area. California leaf-nosed bat BLM-S Moderate – Resident. Year-round resident of southern Nevada. Macrotus californicus SS, S-S2, SCP Roost in caves, mines, or buildings; only foraging habitat is

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 10

Status Species (Federal Likelihood to Occur State) present in the Study Area. However, may roost in caliche caves along upper reaches of California Wash. Likely – Resident. Common year-round resident of southern Nevada. Foraging habitat present. Roosts in crevices, but also California myotis BLM-S buildings, mines, and hollow trees, not expected to roost in the Myotis californicus -- Study Area. However, may roost in caliche caves along upper reaches of California Wash. Moderate – Resident/Migrant. Summer or year-round resident BLM-S of southern Nevada. Roosts in caves, mines, trees, and buildings; Myotis thysanodes SP, S-S2, SCP hibernates in mines and caves. Only foraging habitat present in the Study Area. Likely – Resident. Uncommon in the Mojave and Colorado desert regions, except for the mountain ranges bordering the Colorado Yuma myotis BLM-S River Valley. Distribution closely tied to bodies of water. Open Myotis yumanensis -- forests and woodlands are optimal habitat. Roost in caves, attics, buildings, mines, underneath bridges, and other similar structures; not expected to roost in the Study Area. Moderate – Resident. Uncommon summer resident in southern big free-tailed bat BLM-S Nevada. Typically roost in rocky cliffs and crevices; not expected Nyctinomops macrotis S-S1 to roost in the Study Area. Likely – Resident. Common year-round resident of southern canyon bat BLM-S Nevada. Roosts primarily in crevices, sometimes mines and cave, Parastrellus hesperus -- not expected to roost in Study Area. However, may roost in caliche caves along upper reaches of California Wash. Likely – Resident. Year-round resident of the region; known to occur in Clark County. Roost in a variety of sites including cliff Brazilian free-tailed bat BLM-S faces, mines, caves, buildings, bridges, and hollow trees; not Tadarida brasiliensis SP, SCP expected to roost in the Study Area. However, may roost in caliche caves along upper reaches of California Wash. FE = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973) FT = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973); BGEPA = protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA 1940); BLM-S = listed as a sensitive species by BLM (BLM 2017); SE = endangered in the State of Nevada under NAC 503.050.2; ST = threatened in the State of Nevada under NAC 503.030.2; SS = sensitive in the State of Nevada under NAC 503.050.3, NAC 503.030.3; SP = protected in the State of Nevada under NAC 503.030.1; S-S1 = ranked as S1 (critically imperiled) in the State of Nevada (NNHP 2018); S-S2 = ranked as S2 (imperiled) in the State of Nevada (NNHP 2018); SCP = Species of Conservation Priority under the Nevada SWAP (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Sources: Solar PEIS (BLM and DOE 2010, 2012) and Playa Solar Project’s BBCS (Playa Solar, LLC 2016); NNHP 2018; USFWS 2018.

Nesting Raptors and Ravens A search of the NDOW database conducted in October 2017 resulted in 102 known locations of raptor and raven nests within 10 miles of the Study Area (NDOW 2017). The locations of the nests provided by NDOW are confidential; however, details from the NDOW database search are provided in Table 2. Seven raptor/raven species were identified to nest within 10 miles of the Study Area including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and common raven (Corvus corax).

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 11

Table 2. Number of known raptor and raven nests within 10 miles of the Study Area (NDOW 2017). Occupant1 Number Nest Nest Types General Locations of Nests Substrates red-tailed hawk 8 cliff, power stick Arrow Canyon Range, Dry Lake Range, Muddy line Mountains Buteo 27 cliff stick Arrow Canyon Range, Dry Lake Valley, Dry Lake Range, Muddy Mountains golden eagle 9 cliff stick Arrow Canyon Range, Muddy Mountains eagle/Buteo 20 cliff stick Arrow Canyon Range, Muddy Mountains American kestrel 1 N/A N/A Arrow Canyon Range prairie falcon 3 cliff stick, ledge Arrow Canyon Range, Muddy Mountains peregrine falcon 3 cliff scrape, Muddy Mountains ledge falcon 2 N/A N/A Dry Lake Range great-horned 1 cliff pothole Arrow Canyon Range owl common raven 4 cliff, power stick Dry Lake Range, Muddy Mountains line corvid 8 cliff stick Muddy Mountains unknown 16 cliff stick Arrow Canyon Range, California Ridge, Muddy Mountains Total 102 1 At time of last known occupancy or probable occupant

2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Study Area is located east of the Dry Lake Valley in the northeastern portion of the Mojave Desert (Exhibit 1 and 2). The topography within the Study Area is a gently sloping bajada (with about two to six percent slopes), except for badlands just outside the western Project site footprint. Elevations in the Study Area range from approximately 2,000 to 2,500 feet with the highest elevations in the southeast corner and the lowest in the northeast corner. The area where the Project site is situated is typical of this region and is characterized by broad basins and numerous, paralleling mountain ranges aligned in a north-south configuration, referred to as the Basin and Range Province, that encompasses much of the interior western United States. The Study Area is situated along the lower part of a gently sloping bajada that extends up into the Muddy Mountains, located approximately 5 miles to the south and east. The Dry Lake Range is approximately 4 miles west of the Project site. Multiple braided, intermittent washes flow northward through the Study area and connect into the California Wash. The topography to the north is relatively flat as the California Wash watershed meanders to the northeast, combining with multiple intermittent washes prior to connecting with the Muddy River, approximately 13 miles away, near the towns of Moapa and Glendale; from there, the Muddy River flows east and then southeast through the Moapa Valley and into Lake Mead.

The climate is typical of the northeastern Mojave Desert, characterized by arid conditions and dramatic daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations (Table 3). Most rainfall occurs from December through March and snow is very uncommon; summer monsoon rainfall occurs regularly, typically in July and August (WRCC 2018). No precipitation or temperature data is available for the Study Area. Temperature and

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 12

precipitation data for the Study Area were estimated from records from a National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program (NWS COOP) station and the California Nevada River Forecast Center (CNRFC) in Valley of Fire State Park, approximately 14 miles east of the Study Area (WRCC 2018 and NOAA 2018). The NWS COOP station recorded climate data from December 1972 through June 2016 (WRCC 2018) and the CNRFC recorded precipitation data from October 2001 through June 2018 (NOAA 2018). The Valley of Fire State Park is comparable in elevation to the Study Area.

The Valley of Fire State Park COOP station recorded the average annual high and low temperatures as 80.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 57.9°F, respectively, with average highs between 100 and 106°F during the summer months (June, July, and August) and average lows between 38 and 43°F during the winter months (December, January, and February) (Table 3; WRCC 2018). Average annual precipitation recorded between 1976 and 2016 at the Valley of Fire State Park COOP station was 6.51 inches (Table 3; WRCC 2018). Average annual precipitation recorded between 2001 and 2018 at the Valley of Fire State Park CNRFC was 5.95 inches (Table 3; NOAA 2018).

Table 3. Average monthly precipitation and temperature from Valley of Fire State Park. Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Average Average High (°F) 57.3 62.1 69.6 78.5 89.2 100.3 105.6 103.4 96.0 82.3 67.0 57.0 80.7°F Average Low (°F) 38.8 42.7 47.6 54.5 64.1 73.9 80.5 78.4 71.0 59.0 46.6 38.3 57.9°F Precipitation (in.)1 0.86 1.06 0.85 0.25 0.15 0.07 0.52 0.63 0.41 0.56 0.46 0.69 6.51 inches Precipitation (in.)2 0.71 0.93 0.42 0.27 0.12 0.03 0.43 0.53 0.25 0.64 0.45 1.06 5.95 inches3 1 From the Valley of Fire RAWS COOP Station (1976-2016) (WRCC 2018) 2 From the Valley of Fire CNRFC (2001-2018) (NOAA 2018) 3 Precipitation data was missing for March and April 2017; the annual average does not reflect the total precipitation for 2017.

The soils on the Project site are derived from both aeolian deposits and alluvial deposition of limestone and dolomite parent material. The majority of the site consists of either sandy-gravelly loams or fine sand with gravelly substratum.

Natural vegetation types are found throughout the region except in developed areas. The vegetation types found in the Study Area are characteristic of lower to mid-elevations throughout the region and include shrublands associated with arid valley floors and alluvial slopes, which are commonly characterized by species such creosote (Larrea tridentata), white burrobush (Ambrosia dumosa), and saltbush (Atriplex spp.).

There is no riparian habitat in the Study Area but there are larger washes, including the California Wash, that have some semi-developed desert riparian habitat characterized by catclaw acacia (Senegalia greggii), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), but lacking willows (Salix spp.) or cottonwoods (Populus sp.). The nearest riparian communities of this type would be at the Muddy River and in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. There are no springs in the Study Area, the nearest are probably in the Muddy Mountains. There is a man-made stock pond in Area B of the Study Area that is no longer in use and there are a couple of salt cedars (Tamarix ramosissima) there. The stock pond fills only from rainfall events, but some waterfowl was observed there during baseline surveys (Table 4). There is also some water flow from the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza, located approximately 0.7 mile north of the Study Area boundary, which flows intermittently into the drainage that runs north of the parking lot via a culvert and into California Wash; PBC biologists observed that this flow attracted waterfowl, including a white-faced ibis.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 13

Vegetation Communities Four natural vegetation communities occur in the Study Area: Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa (Creosote-White Burrobush) Shrubland Alliance, Atriplex confertifolia (Shadscale) Shrubland Alliance, Pleuraphis rigida [Hilaria rigida] (Big Galleta) Herbaceous Alliance, and Acacia greggii [Senegalia greggii] (Catclaw Acacia) Shrubland Alliance (Peterson 2008; Sawyer et al. 2009). In addition, badlands were mapped along the gen-ties lines.

Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa (Creosote-White Burrobush) Shrubland Alliance This xerophytic shrubland community is the dominant vegetation alliance of the Mojave Desert. The Creosote-White Burrobush Shrubland Alliance occurs most often on gentle- to moderately sloped alluvial fans, bajadas, and hills in well-drained, sandy soils that are oftentimes calcareous with a caliche hardpan and/or desert pavement surface (Peterson 2008). The Creosote-White Burrobush Shrubland Alliance is the most common vegetation community in the Study Area and comprises approximately 93 percent of the Study Area. Though relative abundance of both creosote and white burrobush varies throughout the site, both species are ubiquitous and can be found everywhere the community exists. Other common shrubs in this community include white ratany (Krameria bicolor), rayless goldenhead (Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus), spiny desert olive (Menodora spinescens), and Anderson thornbush (Lycium andersonii). Beavertail (Opuntia basilaris) and silver cholla (Cylindropuntia echinocarpa) are also common in this alliance. The herbaceous layer consists of perennial and annual forbs and grasses, commonly including white easter bonnets (Eriophyllum lanosum), pebble pincushion (Chaenactis carphoclinia), Nevada cryptantha (Cryptantha nevadensis var. nevadensis), chuckwalla pectocarya (Pectocarya heterocarpa), brittle spineflower (Chorizanthe brevicornu), devil’s spineflower (Chorizanthe rigida), wild buckwheat (Eriogonum trichopes), Moapa bladderpod (Physaria tenella), woolly plantain (Plantago ovata), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and Mediterranean grass (Schismus sp.).

Atriplex confertifolia (Shadscale) Shrubland Alliance The Shadscale Shrubland Alliance is another common alliance of the Mojave Desert and is typically found in valley bottoms or alluvial slopes on medium- to fine-textured alkaline soils, but can also occur on coarser, calcareous substrates. The shrub layer is open to somewhat dense and dominated or co- dominated by shadscale (Peterson 2008). This vegetation alliance is found in the northwestern portion of the Study Area in Area A and along the gen-tie lines. Shadscale Shrubland comprises five percent of the Study Area. This community occurs on alkaline soils that are typically fine textured or on coarse calcareous soils where the alliance occurs near badlands. Shadscale, desert holly (Atriplex hymenelytra), white burrobush, and alkali seepweed (Suaeda nigra) generally co-dominate the alliance. In addition, four- saltbush (Atriplex canescens), little leaved rhatany (Krameria erecta), Anderson thornbush, creosote, Nevada ephedra (Ephedra nevadensis), Torrey’s jointfir (Ephedra torreyana), and big galleta (Hilaria rigida), are all present throughout this area. Forbs have low cover within this alliance. In playa-type areas, only ladder buckwheat (Eriogonum exaltatum), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), and African mustard (Strigosella africana) are common. Other forbs and grasses found in this alliance include Mojave pincushion (Chaenactis macrantha), devil’s spineflower, red stem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), chuckwalla pectocarya, red brome, Mediterranean grass, and others.

Pleuraphis rigida [=Hilaria rigida] (Big Galleta) Herbaceous Alliance The Big Galleta Herbaceous Alliance is found in the Mojave Desert on flat ridgelines, lower slopes, and stabilized sand dunes. According to Peterson (2008), big galleta “is the sole or dominant graminoid in the

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 14

herbaceous layer.” In the Study Area, the Big Galleta Herbaceous Alliance is found along the small washlets, rivulets, and depressions in the northwest portion of the Study Area in Area A and along the gen-tie lines. Big Galleta Herbaceous Alliance comprises less than one percent of the Study Area’s vegetation. The alliance in the Study Area is characterized by small shallow swales with fine cracked soils and dense grass. The alliance is dominated by big galleta. Shrubs are common, often dense, and include white burrobush, broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), Cooper’s box thorn (Lycium cooperi), Anderson thornbush, creosote, little leaved rhatany, and shadscale. Forbs are also common in the rivulets and include lobed ground cherry (Physalis lobata), linda tarde, African mustard, Erodium species, winding mariposa (Calochortus flexuosus), rattlesnake sandmat (Euphorbia albomarginatus), red brome, Arizona brome (Bromus arizonicus), cheatgrass, Mediterranean grass, and others.

Acacia greggii [=Senegalia greggii] (Catclaw Acacia) Shrubland Alliance The description of this alliance in Peterson (2008) is specific to the Sonoran Desert; however, the equivalent alliance in the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer at al. 2009), also called the Acacia greggii (=Senegalia greggii) Shrubland Alliance, fits the community found in the Study Area and so is used here. In the Study Area, this community is found along the larger washes in areas B, D, and F and along the gen-tie lines. Catclaw Acacia Shrubland comprising approximately one percent of the Study Area. The alliance is found in coarse, sandy soils. The shrub canopy is co-dominated by white burrobush, catclaw acacia, and creosote. Other common shrubs and sub-shrubs include Nevada ephedra, Torrey’s jointfir, little leaved rhatany, desert almond (Prunus fasciculata), white rhatany, and Fremont’s indigobush (Psorothamnus fremontii); other characteristic species found in this alliance include woolly bur-sage (Ambrosia eriocentra), cheesebush (Ambrosia salsola), sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), Virgin River encelia (Encelia virginensis), bladder-sage (Scutellaria mexicana), and eastern Mojave buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Desert willows (Chilopsis linearis) are occasional in the tree layer. The herbaceous layer includes native and non-native grasses and forbs such as red brome, cheatgrass, Mediterranean grass, sand rice grass (Stipa hymenoides), cryptantha species (Cryptantha spp.), pectocarya species (Pectocarya spp.), red stem stork’s bill, woolly plantain, and other annuals.

Badlands Badlands are located in the northwest corner of the Study Area along the gen-tie lines. Less than one percent of the Study Area is badlands. This area is primarily a series of small flat-topped hills with deeply incised drainages between them. Soils are a mixture of clay and caliche that appear red in some areas and are bleached white in others. Vegetation is extremely sparse throughout most of this area and some areas are completely without plant life. Shrubs occur in very low densities and include white burrobush, desert holly, and alkali seepweed.

2.3 BASELINE SURVEYS Baseline wildlife and botanical surveys were conducted within the Study Area in 2017 and 2018 by PBC biologists. These surveys include protocol-level desert tortoise surveys conducted in fall 2017 (September 4 through October 19, 2017) and spring 2018 (April 3 to April 12 and May 7 to May 27, 2018); a rare plant inventory in April and May 2018; sampling for cacti/yucca, invasive weeds, vegetation, and biocrust/desert pavement in May and June 2018; avian point count surveys in October and December 2017 and May 2018; and, golden eagle surveys conducted in December 2017 and February, May, and July 2018.

A total of 61 avian species were observed in the Study Area during the baseline surveys, including the following ten special-status species: American avocet, golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon, Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 15

burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, Le Conte’s thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow (Table 4). Of the 61 species found, many were identified during migration and would not be expected to occur in the Study Area during the breeding season. Six species were observed nesting in the Study Area including two special-status species, loggerhead shrike and Le Conte’s thrasher; the other four species observed nesting in the Study Area were mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), verdin (Auriparus flaviceps), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) (Table 4). Ten additional species were considered to have some potential to nest in the Study Area; these included four special-status species, burrowing owl, Bendire’s thrasher, crissal thrasher, and phainopepla, in addition to red-tailed hawk, lesser nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), common raven, horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura), and black- throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata) (Table 4).

Table 4. Avian species observed during baseline surveys in the Study Area. Common Name Scientific Name Notes mallard Anas platyrhinchos Inactive stock pond in Area B turkey vulture Cathartes aura golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Special-status Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii Passage migrant sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Passage migrant Circus cyaneus Passage migrant red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Potential nesting Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Passage migrant; special-status American kestrel Falco sparverius prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Special-status killdeer Charadrius vociferus American avocet Recurvarisrostrra americna Inactive stock pond in Area B pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanota Passage migrant California gull Larus californicus Passage migrant rock pigeon Columba livia Exotic mourning dove Zenaida macroura Nesting burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Potential nesting; special-status lesser nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis Potential nesting common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Passage migrant white-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi Passage migrant Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae Potential nesting ladder-backed woodpecker Picoides scalaris Marginal nesting habitat northern flicker Colaptes auratus Passage migrant western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Passage migrant gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Passage migrant dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Passage migrant Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Potential nesting ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Nesting; special-status warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Passage migrant common raven Corvus corax Potential nesting horned lark Eremophila alpestris Potential nesting

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 16

Common Name Scientific Name Notes violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Passage migrant tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Passage migrant cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Passage migrant barn swallow Hirundo rustica Passage migrant verdin Auriparus flaviceps Nesting Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus Nesting rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Potential nesting ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Passage migrant blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Passage migrant black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura Potential nesting northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Nesting sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Passage migrant; special-status Le Conte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei Nesting; special-status orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata Passage migrant yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Passage migrant western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Passage migrant green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Passage migrant chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Passage migrant Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Passage migrant; special-status Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow Artemesiospiza belli/nevadensis Special-status black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Nesting savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Passage migrant white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Passage migrant western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Passage migrant house finch Carpodacus mexicanus lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltrus Passage migrant

Avian Point Count Surveys

Methods Avian point count surveys were conducted by qualified biologists following the Great Basin Bird Observatory’s (GBBO’s) Instruction Package and Protocol for Point Count Surveys for the Nevada Bird Count, A Habitat-based Monitoring Program for Breeding Birds of Nevada (GBBO 2003). Point count surveys were conducted over three seasons, in the fall and winter of 2017 and spring of 2018. Surveys were conducted over seven days, October 21st and 22nd, December 27th and 28th, and May 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Nine transects were pre-established in the Study Area and each transect had a total of 10 point count stations, each spaced 200 meters apart, for a total of 90 point count stations in the Study Area (Exhibit 3). All point count stations were surveyed during each survey period so that each station was visited once per season. Although point count transects were not surveyed in each of the nine development areas, the established transects covered habitat that is representative of the entire Study Area.

Point count surveys were conducted during suitably mild weather conditions and, when possible, during the time of day optimal for capturing peak bird activity (typically, the early morning). Each point count station was visited for five minutes. Data recorded at each station included the station number, the start and end time, and the species observed; for each species observed, the number of individuals, age (adult,

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 17

juvenile, or immature), , distance to bird, activity (walking on ground, perched above ground, flying, or other), detection method (audio or visual), and any notes were recorded.

Results A total of 636 individual birds of 32 species were recorded over a total of 375 detections during the avian point count surveys (Table 5). A detection is defined as a single observation of bird behavior noted at the same time and place during a point count survey; for example, a group of four sparrows foraging is one detection of four individuals. In fall, 12 species were observed over 110 detections of 195 individual birds; in winter, 11 species were observed over 62 detections of 92 individual birds; and, in spring, 26 species were observed over 203 detections of 349 individual birds (Table 5). An additional 29 species were detected during other surveys in the Study Area. The Shannon diversity index for the Study Area was 2.14 across all seasons, 1.28 during the fall survey, 1.37 during the winter survey, and 1.97 during the spring survey (Table 5). Six special-status species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Le Conte’s thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow, were recorded during the avian point count surveys.

PBC biologist Russell Kokx, who assisted on both the avian point count surveys and the desert tortoise surveys, observed that the avian species diversity was higher during the late summer/fall desert tortoise survey (conducted between September 4 and October 19, 2017) than during the fall point count survey, indicating that the fall point count survey occurred on the trailing end of the fall migration period in the Study Area (R. Kokx pers. comm., March 2018).

Table 5. Avian point count survey results in the Gemini Study Area. Number of Number of Species Number of Shannon Diversity Survey Period Individuals Observed Detections Index (H’) Recorded Fall 2017 12 195 110 1.28 Winter 2017 11 92 62 1.37 Spring 2018 26 349 203 1.97 All Seasons Combined 32 636 375 2.14

The five most common species detected across all seasons were horned lark (n=208), black-throated sparrow (n=142), common raven (n=68), Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow (n=41), and Brewer’s sparrow (n=41) (Table 6). The most common species detected in fall and winter were horned lark, Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow, and common raven and the most common species detected in spring were black-throated sparrow, horned lark, common raven, and Brewer’s sparrow. The nine most common species encountered during the point count surveys over all seasons were horned lark, black-throated sparrow, common raven, Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Le Conte’s thrasher, violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), verdin, and loggerhead shrike (Table 6; Exhibit 4).

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 18

Exhibit 3. Avian Point Count Transects in the Gemini Study Area

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 19

Table 6. Number of detections and individuals of the nine most common species detected during point count surveys in the Gemini Study Area. Number of Birds Detections (Number of Individuals) Species Fall Winter Spring All Seasons Combined loggerhead shrike (LOSH) 3 (3) 3 (3) 2 (2) 8 (8) common raven (CORA) 15 (21) 18 (20) 20 (27) 53 (68) horned lark (HOLA) 55 (127) 13 (29) 40 (52) 108 (208) Le Conte’s thrasher (LCTH) 6 (6) 3 (3) 4 (5) 12 (13) violet-green swallow (VGSW) -- -- 7 (39) 7 (39) verdin (VERD) 5 (5) 3 (5) -- 8 (10) Brewer’s sparrow (BRSP) -- -- 13 (41) 13 (41) Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow 16 (21) 15 (18) 2 (2) 33 (41) (SAGS) black-throated sparrow (BTSP) -- 1 (3) 79 (139) 80 (142)

Table 7. Total species and birds per point and per season in the Gemini Study Area. 95% Confidence 95% Confidence Total Species per Interval Number of Birds Interval Survey Period Point Lower Upper per Point Lower Upper Limit Limit Limit Limit Fall 2017 1.07 0.90 1.24 2.17 1.49 2.84 Winter 2017 0.68 0.52 0.83 1.02 0.72 1.33 Spring 2018 1.97 1.77 2.16 3.88 3.15 4.60 All Seasons Combined 1.23 1.12 1.36 2.36 1.98 2.73

Comparison with Point Count Surveys from Playa Solar and Silver State Solar At the request of the BLM, a comparison of the methods and results of the Gemini avian point count surveys to those of the Playa Solar Project and the Silver State Solar Project was conducted. Point count survey methods between the Playa Solar Project, the Silver State Solar Project, and this project varied. In lieu of conducting point count surveys for the Playa Solar Project, a review of avian transect survey data collected by the GBBO in the vicinity of the Dry Lake SEZ was conducted. The GBBO conducted two avian survey transects within 4 miles of, and within similar habitat types to, the Playa Solar Project site. Two transects, one 1.5 miles long and one 2 miles long, were surveyed, with 10 point-count stations along each for a total of 20 stations. Surveys were conducted at each station three times, in spring 2008, in 2009, and 2010 (Playa Solar LLC 2016). For the Silver State Solar Project, 16 randomly selected sampling locations were established, and four point count stations spaced 200 meters in the cardinal directions from the sampling location’s center were sampled at each, for a total of 64 point count stations. Surveys were conducted at each point count station three times, in fall 2012, winter 2012-2013, and spring 2013 (Silver State Solar Power South, LLC 2013). Table 8 below shows some of the differences in methodology used in the avian point count surveys conducted for each project.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 20

Exhibit 4. Number of Individuals of the Nine Most Common Species Detected during Point Count Surveys in the Gemini Study Area

250

200

150

100 Number of Individuals of Number

50

Fall Winter Spring Total Season

BRSP BTSP CORA HOLA LCTH LOSH SAGS VERD VGSW

Species code definitions: BRSP: Brewer’s sparrow HOLA: horned lark SAGS: Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow BTSP: black-throated sparrow LCTH: Le Conte’s thrasher VERD: verdin CORA: common raven LOSH: loggerhead shrike VGSW: violet-green swallow

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 21

Table 8. Avian point count methods used for the Playa, Silver State South, and Gemini solar projects. Silver State Solar Gemini Solar Methods Playa Solar Project Project Project Number of Transects/Sampling Locations 2 16 9 Length of Transects 1.5 and 2 miles NA ~1 mile Number of Point Count Stations per 10 4 10 Transect/Sampling Location Total Number of Point Count Stations 20 64 90 Minutes Spent at each Station 10 10 5 Number of Surveys at each Station 3 3 3 2008, spring 2009, fall 2012, winter fall and winter 2017 Survey Dates 20101 2012-13, spring 2013 and spring 2018 1 The BBCS only included dates for 2009, so it is unknown when the surveys took place in the other years (Playa Solar LLC 2016).

The results also vary between projects. For the Playa Solar Project, the average number of birds detected per survey and the total number of species detected were reported (Playa Solar LLC 2016). For the Silver State South Solar Project, the total birds per survey per point by season, the total species per point by season, density, and species diversity (among other analyses) were calculated (Silver State Solar Power South, LLC 2013). Results of the avian point counts for each project are presented in Table 9.

In general, the Silver State South and Gemini solar projects are more comparable in terms of numbers of species and individuals detected. The total number of species detected during avian point count surveys at Silver State South and Gemini were 49 and 32, respectively, while Playa surveys detected only nine species (Table 9). Likewise, a total of 796 and 636 individual birds were detected during the Silver State South and Gemini point count surveys, respectively, while a mean of 39 birds were detected during the Playa surveys over the three-year period (Table 9). Total number of species and birds per point and Shannon diversity index (H’) values are also shown in Table 9 for the Silver State South and Gemini study areas but were not reported for the Playa project. The total number of species per point and the Shannon diversity index values were higher in the Silver State South Study Area than in the Gemini Study Area during all seasons. Likewise, the total number of individuals per point was higher in the Silver State South Study Area than in the Gemini Study Area except during spring (Table 9).

The most common species encountered across all seasons at the Silver State South Solar Project were black-throated sparrow (n=139), common raven (n=90), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus; n=66), horned lark (n=43), and rock wren (n=42) (Silver State Solar Power South, LLC 2013). The most common species encountered across all season at the Gemini Solar Project were horned lark (n=208), black- throated sparrow (n=142), common raven (n=68), Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow (n=41), and Brewer’s sparrow (n=41). The Playa Solar Project BBCS did not report the most common species encountered but did list the nine species observed during the avian point count surveys, which are horned lark, black-throated sparrow, common raven, black-tailed gnatcatcher, Brewer’s sparrow, house finch, northern mockingbird, gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), and gray vireo (Vireo vicinior)(Playa Solar LLC 2016).

Six special-status species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Le Conte’s thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow, were recorded during the avian point count surveys in the Gemini Study Area. According to the Silver State South BBCS, two special-status species, loggerhead shrike and crissal thrasher, were observed during the point count surveys Silver State Solar Power South, LLC 2013). According to the Playa Solar BBCS, one special-status species, Brewer’s sparrow, was observed during the avian point count surveys (Playa Solar LLC 2016).

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 22

Table 9. Comparison of results of avian point count sampling between the Playa Solar, Silver State Solar, and Gemini Solar projects. Total Total Number of Number of Total Number of Species per Point Total Number of Birds per Point Shannon Diversity Index (H’) Project Birds Species Name All All All Detected Detected Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring (all surveys) (all surveys) Seasons Seasons Seasons Playa Solar 391 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Project Silver State 796 49 4.77 1.98 2.17 3.24 2.84 2.20 2.17 3.66 2.97 2.44 2.46 2.78 Solar Project2 Gemini Solar 636 32 1.23 1.07 0.68 1.97 2.36 2.17 1.02 3.88 2.14 1.28 1.37 1.97 Project 1 The Playa Solar BBCS only reported the mean number of individuals detected over the three years of surveys (2008-2010) (Playa Solar LLC 2016). 2 See Silver State Solar Power South, LLC 2013 for corresponding confidence levels and additional analyses conducted.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 23

Nesting Raptors/Ravens Nine species of raptors were observed in the Study Area during the desert tortoise and avian point count surveys, including northern harrier, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, American kestrel, prairie falcon, and burrowing owl (Table 4). Common Raven was one of the most common species recorded during the point count surveys. Seven raptor/raven species were identified by NDOW as nesting within 10 miles of the Study Area, including red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, American kestrel, prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, great-horned owl, and common raven (Table 2). Golden eagle and burrowing owl are discussed below. Of the seven other raptors observed in the Study Area, only red-tailed and common ravens were considered to have some likelihood to nest in the Study Area; both of these species nest in stick nests above ground and are most apt to nest on the transmission line towers in the Study Area. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), and Swainson’s hawk were all observed passing through the Study Area during migration. American kestrels and prairie falcons may nest locally, but they nest in cavities and cliffs, respectively, and so there is no suitable nesting habitat for these species in the Study Area.

Golden Eagles Phase 1 occupancy and Phase 2 productivity golden eagle surveys were performed for the Project for the 2018 nesting season; the Golden Eagle Survey Report for the Project is included in Appendix B.

Methods The methodologies were modeled on the USFWS’s Interim Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and Other Recommendations (Pagel et al. 2010).

The Phase 1 aerial occupancy survey area encompassed a 10-mile buffer around the Study Area; an area of approximately 574 square miles. Dugan Biological Services, LLC (DBS) golden eagle biologists visually surveyed, by helicopter, all suitable eagle nesting habitat within the survey area on December 18 and 19, 2017. The Phase 1 ground occupancy survey was performed on February 21 and 22, 2018. Per protocol, the ground survey area was limited to a 3-mile buffer around the Study Area. The Phase 1 surveys focused on detecting golden eagle occupancy using visual searches of all known golden eagle territories and appropriate golden eagle nesting habitat within the survey areas.

The Phase 2 aerial and ground surveys were conducted on May 3, 2018, and July 7-8, 2018 respectively. The Phase 2 surveys focused on determining productivity at the nests previously located during the Phase 1 surveys.

Results Thirteen inactive golden eagle nests were observed during the Phase 1 occupancy surveys. All eagle nests were observed in steep, mountainous rocky habitats. Nests ranged in condition from good to poor. In addition to the nests, an adult pair was observed engaged in aerial courtship.

The Phase 2 aerial survey confirmed two occupied, four active, and seven inactive golden eagle nests within the 10-mile survey area. The two occupied nests, NV-CLA-PP-07 and NV-CLA-MP-12, are described below.

Golden Eagles Nest NV-CLA-PP-07: This nest contained a single chick estimated to be 22-25 days old during the Phase 2 aerial survey. The chick was accompanied in the nest by an adult male eagle. The Phase 2

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 24

ground survey confirmed the chick successfully fledged the nest. This nest is located near a paved road in the northern ranges of the Muddy Mountains approximately 2 miles from the Study Area boundary.

Golden Eagle Nest NV-CLA-MP-12: This nest was determined to be active based on the presence and behavior of an adult eagle pair at the nest, in addition to the observation of a freshly killed and partially eaten black-tailed jackrabbit on a perch adjacent to the nest. Due to surveyor safety constraints and to avoid disturbing the nest and nesting pair, the biologists were not able to view the nest directly. This nest is located in a deep canyon within the Muddy Mountain Wilderness.

Additionally, 20 inactive red-tailed hawk, six inactive common raven, and one inactive prairie falcon nests were located and mapped. All 27 nests were on rocky substrates including vertical cliff faces, rocky buttes, or in rocky cavities. Incidental observations were made of red-tailed hawk, prairie falcon, turkey vulture, American kestrel, and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni).

Burrowing

Methods Burrowing owl and their sign (e.g., burrows, pellets, prey remains, feathers) were recorded as encountered incidentally during the fall 2017 and spring 2018 desert tortoise surveys conducted in the Study Area in 2017 and 2018. Burrowing owls and burrowing owl sign were mapped using global positioning system (GPS) units and notes were recorded in field notebooks or in data dictionaries in the GPS units, as available.

Results Twenty-two detections of burrowing owls or their sign were made in total (Table 10; Exhibit 5). Detections included eight live burrowing owls, nine active burrowing owl burrows with either owls or sign or both, seven inactive burrows with burrowing owl sign, and two possibly active burrows with sign (Table 10). The majority of the burrowing owl observations were made in fall during desert tortoise surveys, one burrowing owl at an active burrow was also observed in December during an avian point count survey. The active burrows and live owl observations indicate that burrowing owls definitely utilize the Study Area in fall and winter. One possibly active burrow observed in May suggests that there may be nesting burrowing owls in the Study Area as well.

Table 10. Burrowing owl detections in the Gemini Study Area Detection Date Identification Detection Type Notes Number 09/07/2017 B-44 Active burrow Active burrow with prey remains, old kit fox den. 09/08/2017 D Inactive burrow Inactive burrow with one pellet. 09/09/2017 B-142 Active burrow Active burrow with whitewash at entrance. Inactive burrow with one pellet and a Class 5 09/18/2017 B-554 Inactive burrow tortoise scat. Whitewash on apron; unidentified bird flushed; 09/18/2017 B-546 Burrow unknown whether active or inactive. 09/18/2017 B-535 Inactive burrow Feathers, pellet, and whitewash at entrance. Flushed live burrowing owl from wash; could not 09/19/2017 B-583 Burrowing owl locate burrow.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 25

Detection Date Identification Detection Type Notes Number Burrowing owl/active Burrowing owl flushed, burrow in caliche, 09/20/2017 B-616 burrow whitewash at entrance. Feathers, whitewash, pellet, and old kitfox scat 09/20/2017 B-592 Inactive burrow outside burrow. 09/20/2017 B-587 Inactive burrow Feathers, whitewash, and pellet outside burrow. Burrowing owl/active Burrowing owl flew northeast out of view; pellets, 09/20/2017 B-654 burrow whitewash, and lots of sign at burrow. 09/20/2017 B-656 Burrowing owl Burrowing owl flew southeast out of visible range. Burrowing owl/active Burrowing owl flushed from kit fox burrow 09/21/2017 B-470 burrow complex, fresh pellet and whitewash. Burrowing owl/active 09/21/2017 B-638 Flushed live burrowing owl; white wash at burrow. burrow 09/22/2017 B-522 Active burrow Two burrows with fresh pellet and whitewash. 09/23/2017 B-960 Burrowing owl Burrowing owl flew south from burrow B-959. 10/05/2017 D-828 Burrowing owl Individual burrowing owl flushed from caliche cave. 10/06/2017 D-832 Active burrow Active burrow with whitewash, and feathers. Active burrow with pellets, feathers, and white 10/09/2017 GT3_478 Active burrow wash. Burrowing owl at active burrow observed during Burrowing owl/active 12/28/2017 Not mapped avian point count survey near Point Count Station burrow 600 along Transect B3 (Exhibit 5) Possibly active burrow with multiple pellets, 05/07/2018 B2-10 Burrow whitewash, and two entrances. Inactive burrow with two entrances, white wash, 05/09/2018 B2-48 Inactive burrow and pellets; vegetation and debris. Inactive burrow with three entrances and white 05/12/2018 B2-131 Inactive burrow wash.

Bats Focused bat surveys have not been conducted in the Study Area. Fifteen special-status bat species were identified during the literature review to have at least some likelihood to occur in the Study Area. The Study Area could be used by all of these special-status bats and other bats for foraging. There is very little suitable roosting habitat for bats in the Study Area such as mines, rocky outcrops, trees or buildings with the exception of some small to medium caliche caves along the upper reaches of California Wash.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 26

Exhibit 5. Burrowing Owl Detections in the Gemini Study Area

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 27

3.0 Risk Assessment

Systematic long-term studies about the risks of solar energy facilities to birds and bats are still in the early stages of development and implementation. Some sources of information on the subject include technical reports and environmental compliance documents prepared for solar facility projects; on-going avian monitoring activities at utility-scale solar facilities; and, published papers and government technical reports. This risk assessment draws from the information provided in these and other sources, as well as from the Playa Solar BBCS (Playa Solar LLC 2016), the Silver State South Solar BBCS (Silver State Solar Power South, LLC 2013), and the Sunshine Valley Solar BBCS (Sunshine Valley Solar, LLC 2017). Systematic avian fatality data is currently being collected for at least 14 large-scale solar facilities in Arizona, California, and Nevada (Avian-Solar Working Group 2016a).

Currently, multiple U.S. government and state agencies have formed the Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group (Avian-Solar Working Group) whose goal is “to develop better information that can be used to inform future actions to reduce the impacts of solar energy development on birds” and who are working on developing an Avian-Solar Coordination Plan to synthesize the knowledge of avian-solar interactions, identify and prioritize information needs, and provide a framework for future management and research implementation, including the development of monitoring and mitigation measures (Avian-Solar Working Group 2016a).

Despite the dearth in long-term studies of the avian and bat relationship to large-scale solar facilities, some aspects of large-scale solar facilities, such as transmission lines and lighting, are common to other energy development facilities; likewise, other outcomes of large-scale solar facilities are common to many development projects, such as habitat loss and degradation or an increase in human and vehicle disturbance levels. The risks to wildlife associated with these elements are relatively well understood.

The risk assessment herein addresses the potential direct and indirect impacts to birds and bats from the Project. Direct impacts have an immediate effect on birds and bats while indirect impacts occur later in time but are reasonably certain to occur.

3.1 DIRECT IMPACTS Some potential direct impacts to birds and bats from the Project are mortality and morbidity to individual birds and bats from collisions (with Project infrastructure or vehicles) or electrocution (from contact with power lines) and habitat loss and modification.

Risk of Collision

Birds A Review of Avian Monitoring and Mitigation Information at Existing Utility-scale Solar Facilities (Walston et al. 2015) includes a summary of the available avian fatality data at utility-scale solar facilities (as of December 2014) at seven facilities. Three of the projects, California Valley Solar Ranch, Topaz Solar Farm, and Desert Sunlight, are PV projects like the Gemini Solar Project. California Valley Solar Ranch is a 250- MW facility covering approximately 2,000 acres, Topaz Solar Farm is a 550-MW facility covering approximately 3,500 acres, and Desert Sunlight is a 550-MW facility covering approximately 4,400 acres. California Valley Solar Ranch and Topaz Solar Farm are both located in San Luis Obispo County, California,

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 28

in grassland and agricultural settings, whereas the Desert Sunlight Project is located in the Mojave Desert in Riverside County, CA.

A total of 368 systematic fatalities were recorded at the California Valley Solar Ranch between August 2012 and August 2013; this total includes all fatalities from all project elements including background control plots (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2014; Walston et al. 2015). As reported in the Playa Solar BBCS, the California Valley Ranch Project carcasses were 56 percent and 30 percent doves and pigeons; the most frequently found species were mourning doves (30 percent), horned larks (26 percent), house finches (14 percent), and western meadowlarks (seven percent); and, only one water bird, an American coot (Fulica americana), was found (Playa Solar LLC 2016). As reported in the Sunshine Valley Solar BBCS, approximately 55 percent of all carcasses recovered were found in the solar array fields (Sunshine Valley Solar, LLC 2017).

The Topaz Solar Farm report reported 41 systematic fatalities and 19 incidental fatalities between January 2013 and January 2014; this total includes all fatalities from all project elements including background control plots (Althouse and Meade 2014; Walston et al. 2015). As reported in the Sunshine Valley Solar BBCS, six of the total number of carcasses found at the Topaz Solar Farm (n=66) were domestic chickens that were probably brought into the project area by a predator; of the remaining 60 carcasses found, 33 percent were passerines, 22 percent were corvids, and 20 percent doves and pigeons; the most frequently found species were common ravens (22 percent), horned larks (20 percent), and mourning doves (12 percent); and, four were water birds. Of the 41 carcasses found during systematic surveys, 64 percent were found in background control plots, 34 percent were found in the solar array fields, and two percent were found under transmission lines (Sunshine Valley Solar, LLC 2017; Althouse and Meade 2014).

The Desert Sunlight Project reported 154 incidental fatalities between September 2011 and March 2014 (Walston et al. 2015) and 149 systematic fatalities between February 2015 and February 2016 (WEST 2016). In their analysis of the incidental fatality data, Kagan et al. (2014) reported that the number one determinable cause of death at the Desert Sunlight Project was impact trauma (19 carcasses), followed by trauma (15 carcasses); for 22 carcasses the cause of death was undetermined because the remains were in poor condition, and in five carcasses showed no evident cause of death. Of the carcasses with identifiable remains (n=56), 18 were resident birds and 38 were migratory. This study divided the avian species by foraging zone (air, terrestrial, and water) and found that seven carcasses were from the air zone, 22 from the terrestrial zone, and 27 from the water zone (Kagan et al. 2014). The standardized fatality data also found that water birds comprised the most frequently encountered group (n=36, 56 percent), followed by passerines (n=16, 23 percent). The most common water birds encountered were grebes (including western grebe [Aechmophorus occidentalis], eared grebe [Podiceps nigricollis], and pied- bill grebe [Podilymbus podiceps]), which comprised 36 percent of the water bird sample, followed by American coot (16 percent), common loon (Gavia immer; seven percent), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis; five percent), and sora (Porzana carolina; five percent). The estimated number of fatalities within the solar facility for the year based on the standardized data collected was 579 and the estimated number of fatalities for water birds and passerines was similar (265 and 252, respectively), this result, despite more water bird carcass being found, has to do with the persistence and detectability of water bird carcasses, being both longer-lasting and more likely to be detected because they are larger and heavier (WEST 2016; Sunshine Valley Solar LLC 2017).

Mortality and morbidity can result from collisions with various project infrastructure (solar panels, fences, transmission lines) and with vehicles related to the project. Walston et al. 2015 reported that at PV

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 29

facilities, collision risks to birds were highest in the solar arrays. These collisions are not always fatal but can result in other direct impacts such as injury, vulnerability to predation, and stranding (some waterfowl [e.g., grebes] can only take off from water, and therefore cannot take off again from dry land and become stranded) (Avian-Solar Working Group 2016a). A theory called the “lake effect” hypothesizes that PV facilities attract migrating birds, particularly wading birds and waterfowl, because the reflective surfaces of the PV panels appear to them as bodies of water (Kagan et al. 2014); however, there has not been sufficient study of this hypothesis to date (Walston et al. 2015; Avian-Solar Working Group 2016a).

Equipment or vehicles could collide with birds species or crush birds or their nests in shrubs or burrows. Active nests in shrubs or burrows could be disturbed or crushed during construction activities and vegetation clearing activities. Equipment and vehicle traffic would be increased during construction and could increase disturbance to birds nesting near Project roads. Implementation of Conservation Measures, described in Section 4.0 below, would help to minimize or avoid these risks.

Bats Based on the data collected to date, PV facilities do not appear to show much risk to bats; no bat fatalities have been reported to date at any of the PV facilities discussed above (Sunshine Valley Solar, LLC 2017).

Risk of Electrocution

Birds Electrocution is more likely to be caused by smaller residential and commercial distribution lines (less than 69 kilovolts) (APLIC 2012). The spacing and arrangement of the energized and grounded components where birds may perch or nest affects the potential for avian electrocutions. The transmission line poles and towers associated with the Project have been designed to minimize the risk of avian electrocutions following the recommendation in Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2012).

Bats It is unknown whether bats are at risk of electrocution from power lines.

Habitat Loss and Modification

Birds Vegetation clearing and grubbing, disk and roll, grading, and construction, would result in habitat loss and displacement of birds resident in or utilizing the Study Area. The modification of the landscape for Project development would result in a loss of cover, perches, roosts, nesting habitat, shelter, and foraging habitat for resident birds and a loss of perches, roosts, and foraging habitat for migratory birds that use the Study Area. Ninety-three percent of the Study Area is in the Creosote-White Burrobush Shrubland Alliance, the dominant vegetation alliance of the Mojave Desert (Peterson 2008), which is available throughout the surrounding landscape.

Bats Vegetation clearing and grubbing, disk and roll, grading, and construction, may result in habitat loss and displacement of bats resident in or utilizing the Study Area. The modification of the landscape for Project development may result in a loss of foraging habitat for resident and migratory bats utilizing the Study Area. As discussed above, bats are not expected to roost in the Study Area because of a lack of suitable

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 30

roosting habitat. It is unknown whether the habitat loss, modification, and fragmentation associated with the Project would directly affect bats.

3.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS Indirect impacts can include changes to the landscape that were unintended or unforeseen, but also include impacts that may occur later in time but are reasonably certain to occur. Some indirect impacts can be difficult to assess or determine before they happen. Some potential indirect impacts to birds and bats from the Project include abandonment of territories, nests, or roosts; increased opportunities for predators and increased predation; habitat degradation and fragmentation; disturbance, disruption, and/or displacement of wildlife due to increased human presence, noise, and light; risks from exposure to dust and hazardous materials; and, impacts from altered hydrology.

Territory, Nest, or Roost Abandonment Visual and auditory disturbances from human presence and construction equipment may result in changes to a bird or bat’s behavior. Noise and other disturbance during construction may cause birds to abandon nests or territories or to avoid habitat adjacent or near to the Study Area. These , as well as those displaced from the Study Area because of habitat loss, may instead use other habitat that is less suitable and is already being used by others; this may result in increased stress and/or energetic costs to both the relocating individuals and those that already inhabit the area. Because bats are not anticipated to roost in the Study Area, it is unlikely that roost abandonment would occur. Conservation measures include measures to protect against direct nest removal and disturbance during construction and operations.

Predation Risk The Project may attract prey and predators to the infrastructure and modified habitat that could indirectly result in injury or mortality to birds or bats. Some predators, such as common ravens and coyotes (Canis latrans), are attracted to human activity and associated food resources, such as garbage or road kill. Ravens and raptors take advantage of increased perching structures, such as transmission poles/towers and fences, from which they may hunt for prey and carrion. Conservation measures include a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and a trash abatement program to minimize or avoid human- related impacts.

Habitat Degradation and Fragmentation Project-related fencing could increase habitat fragmentation and increase the energetic costs of moving around in the habitat outside the Study Area. Similar to the territory/nest abandonment discussed above, this could also put added pressure and/or increased competition on the resources and populations outside the Study Area. Many of the larger wash communities in the Study Area would be avoided, but the alteration and fragmentation of the surrounding habitat would likely result in impacts to how resident and migratory species utilize the area for shelter, cover, nesting, and foraging. The Project would contribute to habitat fragmentation in the larger Dry Lake Valley region, which is currently mostly attributed to nearby utility-scale solar facilities and roads, including I-15. Habitat degradation can occur in the areas outside the disturbance area through the introduction on noxious weeds from the Project site and other human-related disturbances such as increased use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and other recreation activities that can disturb wildlife (e.g., shooting) or introduce trash. The Integrated Weed Management Plan that is being prepared for the Project outlines measures to reduce the spread of weeds. Other human-related disturbances may increase or decrease because of the Project or remain unchanged, however this is extremely difficult to determine.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 31

Human Presence, Noise, and Light Human presence, noise, and light would indirectly impact birds and bats in the Study Area. Increase noise and human presence may discourage birds and bats from foraging, nesting, or roosting nearby. Many birds rely on vocalization during the breeding season and noise levels during the construction activities could reduce the reproductive success of nesting birds in the areas adjacent to the Project. However, this impact would be temporary. Other birds may avoid the area, which would result in a greater amount of displacement than from just the Project disturbance area; these individuals may return to suitable habitat outside the Project disturbance area following the cessation of the greater noise levels and human presence associated with Project construction.

Artificial lights can disorient and attract birds and bats and can cause collision-related morbidity or mortality. Artificial lights also effect the light-sensitive cycles of many species (Saleh 2007). Glare from PV solar panels and night lighting associated with the Project could disorient birds in or attract them to the Study Area. Likewise, polarized light from the PV panels and night lighting could attract to the Study Area which could attract birds and bats. Night lighting is a known contributor to major bird kill events at communications towers (Manville 2001; Playa Solar LLC 2016; Avian-Solar Working Group 2016a). Impacts related to human presence, noise, and light would be reduced with implementation of the Conservation Measures.

Dust and Hazardous Materials Project activities that result in release of dust or hazardous materials could result in habitat loss or degradation, including modification of soil erosion or sedimentation rates and/or introduction or spread of noxious weeds, and/or harm plants or wildlife. Materials released could include fuels and other hazardous materials used during routine construction and maintenance activities. Hazardous materials released could impact biological resources by injuring or killing vegetation and wildlife through either short-term acute exposure or long-term chronic exposure. Soil erosion from disk and roll, grading, and the use of heavy equipment affects vegetation and soil properties, which could adversely affect bird foraging and burrowing habitat outside of the Project disturbance area. Impacts associated with dust and hazardous materials would be reduced through implementation of Conservation Measures.

Altered Hydrology Project-related activities that may alter the hydrology of the Study Area and its surroundings include clearing and grading, which removes soil-stabilizing vegetation and topsoils. Because the California Wash, a large ephemeral drainage to the Muddy River, bisects the Project site, impacts to surface water from altered hydrology could contribute to some indirect effects to bird and bat habitat downstream via changes to drainage patterns, and through sedimentation and erosion. Water could be purchased and accessed through construction of an on-site groundwater well, or purchased from an off-site source. If a well is installed, groundwater pumping for Project construction and operation is not expected to have any effects on surrounding groundwater users or springs (West Yost Associates 2019). The Conservation Measures for the Project include those designed to protect and mitigate for impacts to hydrology and water quality.

3.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS AVIAN AND BAT SPECIES Special-status species that are known to occur or may occur in the Study Area are listed in Table 1. These species were evaluated for their potential to occur in the Study Area. A total of 42 special-status birds and

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 32

15 special-status bats have at least some likelihood to occur in the Study Area. The natural history, likelihood to occur, and potential to be impacted by the Project is discussed below for each special-status species. Impacts to special-status avian and bat species would be reduced or avoided by implementation of the Conservation Measures, discussed in Section 4.0, and monitored by a systematic monitoring and adaptive management plan to support avoidance, minimization, and detection of impacts to birds and bats by the proposed Project.

Avian Species that are Unlikely to Occur

Northern Pintail, Canvasback, Redhead, Common Loon, American White Pelican, White-faced Ibis, Western Snowy Plover, American Avocet, Long-billed Curlew, Long-billed Dowitcher, Western Sandpiper, Black Tern, Wilson’s Phalarope, Common Nighthawk, Rufous Hummingbird, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Great Basin Willow Flycatcher, Bell’s Vireo, Pinyon Jay, Bank Swallow, and Virginia’s Warbler These 21 species are all unlikely to occur because there is little to no suitable foraging habitat and no breeding habitat for them in the Study Area. None of these species were observed in the Study Area during the baseline surveys. One of these species, American avocet, was observed during baseline surveys using the inactive man-made stock pond in Area B. They may occur incidentally during migration in the Study Area or nearby. The small stock pond in the Study Area holds water seasonally, after rain events, and could attract waterfowl during migration; however, it would be removed during construction. Impacts to these species from the proposed Project are unlikely but include collisions with Project infrastructure (including PV arrays), vehicles, or the gen-tie lines.

Eagles (Golden Eagle and Bald Eagle)

Golden Eagle In Nevada, golden eagles primarily use cliff and sagebrush habitats but also salt desert scrub, Mojave scrub and lowland riparian, Joshua tree, and pinyon-juniper habitats. Their primary prey are rabbits and (GBBO 2010). Golden eagle nesting territories are usually located in open to semi-open habitats away from urban settings. Pairs build large stick nests on rocky cliffs, in the upper portions of large trees, on protected shelves of steep canyon walls, and on man-made structures (e.g., transmission towers and windmills; Appendix B). In southern Nevada, the breeding season is usually January through August; with courtship beginning in December, egg-laying occurring from January to February, hatching in late spring to early summer (April–May), rearing throughout the summer (May–June), and fledging in mid-summer with adults continuing to provide food and teaching young to hunt well into the fall months (Appendix B.)

Golden eagles are impacted by habitat loss, habitat degradation, drought, and low prey availability (Appendix B). Generally, direct impacts to breeding golden eagles as a result of Project-related activities include the potential for loss of foraging habitat, reduced prey species populations within foraging areas, injury or mortality due to collisions with Project equipment, increased anthropogenic disturbances and mortality, collisions with vehicles, abandonment of a breeding territory or nest site, and reduced productivity of productive or ideal nesting territories. The USFWS typically considers loss of potential golden eagle foraging habitat as significant if losses occur within one to 3 miles of an active nest (Pagel et al. 2010).

Golden eagles were observed during the desert tortoise survey in September/October 2017 and two active nests were located during the golden eagle surveys in 2018 (Appendix B). The nearest occupied

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 33

nest identified (NV-CLA-PP-07) is located approximately 2 miles from the current Project application area, and approximately 5 miles from the nearest proposed disturbance area. Given these distances, Project- related impacts associated with loss of foraging habitat are expected to be low and non-significant. Development of the Project would result in an incremental increase in noise and human presence, and these could cause an indirect impact to this species. The Project would also include gen-tie lines, which would present a potential collision hazard.

Bald Eagle Bald eagles are unlikely to occur in the Study Area, though they may pass by during migration or movement. Bald eagles are primarily found in Nevada in the winter months but are also known to breed there (GBBO 2010). In Nevada, bald eagles primarily use open water and Great Basin lowland riparian habitats, but also Mojave lowland riparian, coniferous forest, and agriculture habitats (GBBO 2010). They eat primarily fish, caught from the air, scavenged, or pirated from others. There are relatively common around Lake Mead, but would not be expected to nest or forage in the Study Area. There are no anticipated impacts to bald eagles from the Project.

Hawks and Falcons (Swainson’s Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk, Peregrine Falcon, and Prairie Falcon) Swainson’s hawks only have the potential to occur during spring and fall migration, ferruginous hawks are winter residents, and peregrine falcons and prairie falcons are year-round residents of the region.

Swainson’s Hawk In Nevada, Swainson’s hawks occur in the spring and summer seasons and primarily utilize Great Basin and Mojave lowland riparian, agriculture, and sagebrush habitats, but also wet meadows (GBBO 2010). There is no suitable nesting habitat in the Study Area and Swainson’s hawks are only expected to occur incidentally during migration. One Swainson’s hawk was observed flying over the Study Area during an avian point count survey in May 2018. The Project is not expected to have any impacts to Swainson’s hawks.

Ferruginous Hawk Ferruginous hawks are winter residents in southern Nevada and utilize sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, and salt desert scrub habitats (GBBO 2010). Their primary prey is rabbits and they are sensitive to impacts affecting prey populations such as invasive weeds, habitat fragmentation, fire, and habitat loss (GBBO 2010). Ferruginous hawks could be affected by the proposed Project due to its impacts to their prey from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; however, given the wide range of this species in winter and the availability of other suitable, and more suitable, habitat nearby, implementation of the Project is not expected to greatly impact ferruginous hawk foraging habitat.

Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons are known to occur year-round in the Lake Mead area and primarily use cliff habitats, as well as Mojave lowland riparian, Mojave scrub, and marsh habitats (GBBO 2010). Their primary prey are small to medium-sized birds. They nest on ledges of cliffs, buildings, and bridges. Impacts from the proposed Project include the permanent reduction of potential foraging habitat associated with development of the Project; however, given the availability of other suitable, and more suitable, habitat nearby, implementation of the Project is not expected to greatly impact peregrine falcon foraging habitat. Development of the Project would result in an incremental increase in noise and human presence, and

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 34

these could cause an indirect impact. Project infrastructure, including the gen-tie lines and vehicles, present a potential collision hazard.

Prairie Falcon Prairie falcons are year-round residents of the region; in Nevada, they utilize cliff, sagebrush, Mojave scrub, and salt desert scrub habitats, but also Joshua tree, wet meadow, and agriculture habitats (GBBO 2010). Like peregrines, they nest on cliff ledges. Their primary prey are small .

No suitable nesting habitat for prairie or peregrine falcons is present within the Study Area. Eight falcon nests are known within 10 miles of Study Area from the Arrow Canyon Range, Dry Lake Range, and the Muddy Mountains, including two confirmed prairie falcon nests (one in 2014 and one in 1977), one probable prairie falcon nest (in 2010), two confirmed peregrine falcon nests (one in 2012 and one in 2009), one probably peregrine falcon nest (in 2014), and two probably falcon nests (one in 2001 and one in 1973) (Table 2; NDOW 2017). Prairie falcons were observed during the desert tortoise survey in September/October 2017 and during the golden eagle surveys in December 2017 and an unoccupied prairie falcon nest was also observed during the golden eagle surveys (Appendix B).

Impacts from the proposed Project would include the permanent reduction of potential foraging habitat associated with development of the Project; however, given the availability of other suitable, and more suitable, habitat nearby, implementation of the Project is not expected to greatly impact prairie falcon foraging habitat. Development of the Project would result in an incremental increase in noise and human presence, and these could cause an indirect impact. Project infrastructure, including the gen-tie lines and vehicles, present a potential collision hazard.

Owls (Burrowing Owl and Short-eared Owl) There are two special-status owls with some likelihood to occur in the Study Area, burrowing owl and short-eared owl. Burrowing owls are known to occur in the Study Area and have been documented during the biological surveys. Short-eared owls are unlikely to occur. Burrowing owls are relatively common year- round residents of the region, while short-eared owls may occur in southern Nevada year-round (with seasonal movements), as winter residents, and during migration (GBBO 2010).

Burrowing Owl In Nevada, burrowing owls are year-round residents of the Mojave Desert region and prefer treeless areas with low vegetation in sagebrush and salt desert scrub habitats, but also agriculture, Mojave scrub, Joshua tree, grassland, urban/suburban, and open disturbed habitats. They nest in burrows constructed by burrowing mammals. Their primary prey are arthropods, small mammals, and reptiles. Threats to burrowing owls include habitat loss and reductions in burrowing populations.

Twenty-two detections of burrowing owls or their sign were made in the Study Area during baseline surveys in 2017 and 2018 (Table 10; Exhibit 5). Detections included eight live burrowing owls, nine active burrowing owl burrows with either owls or sign or both, seven inactive burrows with burrowing owl sign, and two possibly active burrows with sign. The majority of the burrowing owl observations were made in fall during desert tortoise surveys, one burrowing owl at an active burrow was also observed in December during an avian point count survey. The active burrows and live owl observations indicate that burrowing owls certainly utilize the Study Area in fall and winter. One possibly active burrow observed in May suggests that there may be nesting burrowing owls in the Study Area as well.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 35

Potential impacts from the Project on burrowing owls include injury or death of individuals from ground- disturbing or other construction activities or collisions; destruction, disturbance, or abandonment of active nests; displacement of resident owls; and, habitat loss. Relocation of owls to other suitable habitat nearby may result in stress to the relocated owls and pressure on the resources and the resident owls in the relocation area. Development of the Project would result in an incremental increase in noise and human presence, and these could cause an indirect impact to the species. Project infrastructure, including the gen-tie lines, and vehicles could present a potential collision hazard.

Short-eared Owl Short-eared owls may occur in southern Nevada year-round (with seasonal movements), as winter residents, and during migration (GBBO 2010). They are unlikely to occur in the Study Area except possibly incidentally as they primarily use wet meadow habitats with a high density of grass or other herbaceous cover and sufficient vole populations (their primary prey) (GBBO 2010). As such, the Project is not expected to have any impacts on short-eared owls.

Ridgway’s Rail Ridgway’s rail (formerly Yuma clapper rail) is a state and federally listed riparian obligate species. The range of the species in Nevada includes the Virgin River, the Lower Muddy River, the Colorado River around Lake Mojave, the Las Vegas Wash, and Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (Playa Solar LLC 2016; GBBO 2010). In Nevada, this species uses primarily marsh habitats, but also Mojave lowland riparian, inhabiting shallow marshes with mudflats and open water surrounded by riparian habitat (GBBO). Primary prey are crustaceans, especially crayfish and clams. Very little is known currently about Ridgway’s rails migratory, dispersal, and seasonal movements though they are thought to be mostly sedentary and would likely follow riparian/lake corridors.

The nearest suitable habitat for this species to the Study Area is in the Lower Muddy River, approximately 18 miles east. The Study Area is not within a path that would connect any aquatic features and contains no suitable habitat for the species. There are no perennial surface waters in the Study Area, though there are ephemeral washes and a stock pond. The nearest perennial water is likely the drainage near the Moapa Paiute Travel Plaza approximately 0.7 mile north of the Study Area. It is possible, though unlikely, that dispersing rails could use these waters during stop overs. Two Ridgway rail fatalities have been reported at utility-scale solar facilities, Desert Sunlight (discussed above) and Solar Gen 2, another PV facility located near the Salton Sea in Imperial County, California (Kagen et al. 2014; Walston et al. 2016).

Impacts to Ridgway’s rail from the proposed Project are unlikely but include collisions with Project infrastructure (including PV arrays), vehicles, or the gen-tie lines.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo The western population of the yellow-billed cuckoo is a federally listed and riparian obligate species. The summer breeding range of the species in Nevada is currently the Lower Muddy River and Virgin River, Pahranagat Valley, and Las Vegas Wash (Playa Solar LLC 2016; GBBO 2010). In Nevada, cuckoos use Mojave lowland riparian habitat primarily, but also springs, and historically Great Basin lowland riparian habitat. They require large intact tracts of riparian gallery forest or tall riparian thickets with diverse vertical structure, typically characterized by Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willows (Salix sp.), salt cedar (Tamarix sp.), and mesquite (Prosopis sp.) (GBBO 2010).

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 36

The nearest suitable habitat for this species to the Study Area is in the Lower Muddy River, approximately 18 miles east. There is currently a lack of information on yellow-billed cuckoo dispersal, but they are not expected to disperse widely over non-riparian areas. The Study Area is not within a path that would connect any aquatic features and contains no suitable habitat for the species. There is no riparian habitat within or nearby the Study Area. One yellow-billed cuckoo fatality has been reported at the Ivanpah Solar Project, a power tower facility located near the state line in San Bernardino County, California (Kagen et al. 2014; Walston et al. 2016).

Yellow-billed cuckoos could occur incidentally during migration/dispersal in the Study Area or nearby. Impacts to this species from the proposed Project are unlikely but may include collisions with Project infrastructure (including PV arrays), vehicles, or the gen-tie lines.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher The southwestern willow flycatcher is a state and federally listed riparian-obligate subspecies. Southwestern willow flycatchers are summer residents of southern Nevada, known to occur in the Virgin River, Lower Muddy River, Warm Springs Natural Area, Pahranagat Valley, Meadow Valley Wash, and Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Critical habitat for the subspecies exists along the Virgin River, north and east of Lake Mead National Recreation Area and in the Pahranagat Valley. In Nevada, this subspecies uses Mojave and Great Basin lower riparian, montane riparian, springs, and marsh (less frequently) habitats (GBBO) 2010). Preferred habitat is typically dense riparian with extensive thickets of riparian shrubs, saturated soils, and nearby water; species may include willow, salt cedar, Fremont’s cottonwood, alder (Alnus sp.), and ash (Fraxinus spp.).

The nearest suitable habitat for this species to the Study Area is in the Lower Muddy River, approximately 18 miles east. The subspecies is closely tied to riparian habitat and is not expected to disperse widely over other areas. The Study Area is not within a path that would connect any aquatic features and contains no suitable habitat for the species. There is no riparian habitat within or nearby the Study Area. One southwestern willow flycatcher fatality has been documented at a utility-scale solar facility (Avian-Solar Working Group 2016b).

Southwestern willow flycatchers could occur incidentally during migration/dispersal in the Study Area or nearby. Impacts to this species from the proposed Project are unlikely but include collisions with Project infrastructure (including PV arrays), vehicles, or the gen-tie lines.

Loggerhead Shrike, Le Conte’s Thrasher, Sage Thrasher, Bendire’s Thrasher, Crissal Thrasher, and Phainopepla Loggerhead shrike and Le Conte’s thrashers are known to be resident in the Study Area; both species were observed nesting within the Study Area during baseline surveys and were observed at numerous point count stations during avian point count surveys. Sage thrasher was observed during desert tortoise surveys in September/October 2017; this species is only expected during migration or in winter. Neither Bendire’s thrasher, crissal thrasher, nor phainopepla were detected in the Study Area during any of the baseline surveys; however, all have a moderate possibility of occurring in low numbers. Note that the statement of impacts to these species is presented after the discussion of each species. Though Bendire’s thrasher, crissal thrasher, and phainopepla were not observed in the Study Area during any of the baseline surveys, there is suitable habitat for these species and all may occur there, though likely in low numbers.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 37

Loggerhead Shrike Loggerhead are resident in most of Nevada; in the Mojave, they breed in desert shrubland habitats and nest in shrubs or small trees. Their primary prey is insects, but they also other invertebrates, small birds, lizards, frogs, and rodents. Of interest, loggerhead shrikes, Le Conte’s thrashers, and cactus wrens form a nesting guild that may compete for nest sites in thorny, dense desert plants, including cholla (Cylindropuntia spp.); all three of these species were found nesting in the Study Area. Loggerhead shrikes were observed nesting in the Study Area during desert tortoise surveys in March 2018. They were also observed in October and December 2017 and May 2018 during the avian point count surveys and again in fall 2017 during desert tortoise surveys. Loggerhead shrikes were observed at three point count stations on October 21, 2017 (one individual at each station); at one point count station on May 1, 2018 (one individual) and at one point count station on May 3, 2018 (one individual; and, at one point count station on December 27, 2017 (one individual) and two point count stations on December 28, 2017 (one individual at each station).

Le Conte’s Thrasher Le Conte’s thrashers are resident in southern Nevada and have a limited and patchy distribution. They use Mojave salt desert scrub, Mojave scrub, mesquite-acacia, and Joshua tree habitats (GBBO 2010). They appear to prefer flat sandy desert habitats at low elevations, such as valley bottoms near playas, in open shrublands with saltbushes (Atriplex spp.) and cholla, prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), or yucca (Yucca spp.), also mesquite-acacia habitat and ephemeral washes. Movements within their large home ranges can occur both seasonally and between years (GBBO 2010). As described above, they form a nesting guild with loggerhead shrikes and cactus wrens and they also appear to partition habitat with the two other resident thrashers, Bendire’s thrasher and crissal thrasher. Le Conte’s thrashers were observed nesting in the Study Area during the desert tortoise survey in April/May 2018, they were also observed during point count surveys in October and December 2017 and May 2018 and in September/October 2017 during desert tortoise surveys. Le Conte’s thrashers were observed at six point count stations in October 2017 (one individual per station), at two point count stations in December 2017 (one individual per station), and at four point count stations in May 2018 (two individuals at one station and one at each of the other three).

Sage Thrasher Sage thrashers are winter residents of southern Nevada, and breed in much of the rest of the state. In Nevada, sage thrashers use sagebrush, montane shrubland, and salt desert scrub habitats characterized by sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.), and various other shrubs of the salt desert and montane shrub communities. Sage thrashers are associated with the sagebrush communities of the Great Basin and Mojave deserts. There is no sagebrush habitat in the Study Area and this species is not expected to reside there, but may pass through during migration or winter movements. A sage thrasher was observed in the Study Area during desert tortoise surveys in September/October 2017. Potential impacts to sage thrashers from the proposed Project are unlikely but include collisions with Project infrastructure (include PV arrays), vehicles, or the gen-tie lines.

Bendire’s Thrasher Southern Nevada is the northern extent of the range of Bendire’s thrasher and they partially migrate south out of Nevada in winter. In Nevada, Bendire’s thrashers primarily use Joshua tree and mesquite-acacia habitats, but also Mojave scrub (GBBO 2010). They prefer shrubland with a scattering of taller vegetation, such as Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia), other yuccas, cholla, mesquite, acacia, and other tall shrubs. Bendire’s thrashers tend to inhabit areas with denser and taller shrubs than Le Conte’s thrashers (GBBO

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 38

2010). It is unknown whether Bendire’s thrashers have large home ranges as Le Conte’s thrashers do, but they, like Le Conte’s thrashers, have a limited and patchy distribution.

Crissal Thrasher Crissal thrashers are resident in southern Nevada and occupy desert riparian and desert scrub habitats, with dense, low shrubs and typically associated with riparian areas or washes. Characteristic species may include mesquite, catclaw acacia, and willows, among other common desert tree and shrub species.

Phainopepla Phainopepla are summer residents in southern Nevada and also utilize mesquite-acacia habitat, as well as Mojave lowland riparian habitat, Mojave desert scrub, and juniper woodland. Phainopepla are associated with one of their food sources, mistletoe (Phoradendron spp.); mistletoe commonly occur on several desert trees include mesquite, catclaw acacia, and juniper. Catclaw Acacia Shrubland Alliance was common along the larger washes in the Study Area and some of the catclaw acacia in the Study Area did support mistletoe. Phainopepla were not observed in the Study Area during baseline surveys and are only expected to occur in summer while breeding or during migration; outside of the breeding season, they often travel in small flocks.

Potential Impacts Potential impacts from the Project to these species (all but sage thrasher – discussed above) could include injury or death of individuals from ground-disturbing or other construction activities or collisions; destruction, disturbance, or abandonment of active nests; displacement of resident birds; and, a permanent reduction of foraging and nesting habitat associated with development of the Project. Birds relocating to other suitable habitat nearby may experience stress and energetic costs, and also exert pressure on the resources and the resident birds in the relocation areas. Development of the Project would result in an incremental increase in noise and human presence, and these could cause an indirect impact to the species. Project infrastructure, including the gen-tie lines, and vehicles could present a potential collision hazard. Habitat fragmentation may impact thrashers because of their unpredictable and patchy distributions and, at least in the case of Le Conte’s thrasher, because they utilize large home ranges. Avoidance of all potentially suitable habitats (primarily desert scrub) is not feasible, because potentially suitable habitat is widespread throughout the Study Area and the region; however, avoidance of some catclaw acacia habitat along some of the larger washes is incorporated into the Project design.

Bell’s/Sagebrush Sparrow, Brewer’s Sparrow, and Black-chinned Sparrow Note that the statement of impacts to these species is presented after the discussion of each species.

Bell’s/Sagebrush Sparrow Birds in the Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow complex are either Bell’s or sagebrush sparrows and so may be year- round residents in the Study Area (Bell’s sparrow) or winter residents (sagebrush sparrow). In the Mojave, Bell’s sparrows use low scrub, including creosote and saltbush-dominated desert scrub, yucca, honey mesquite, and greasewood. During migration and winter, they form loose flocks with other sparrow species, including sagebrush sparrows. Sagebrush sparrow do not breed in southern Nevada, but winter there, utilizing sagebrush, salt desert scrub, and Mojave desert scrub habitats. Sagebrush sparrows are known to avoid highly fragmented habitats and are most abundant in large tracts of contiguous shrubland. Individual Bell’s/sagebrush sparrows were observed in Study Area during point count surveys in May 2018 and October and December 2017 and during desert tortoise surveys and botanical surveys in April and

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 39

May 2018. Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow was one of the five most common species detected in the Study Area during the avian point count surveys (Table 6).

Brewer’s Sparrow In Nevada, Brewer’s sparrows winter in the Mojave Desert and breed in the Great Basin Desert. In Nevada, they primarily use montane sagebrush, sagebrush, and salt desert scrub habitats and prefer a high density of shrubs. Like sagebrush sparrows, Brewer’s sparrows appear to be more abundant in larger patches of habitat. Brewer’s sparrows were detected in the Study Area during desert tortoise surveys in September/October 2017 and during the May 2018 avian point count survey. Brewer’s sparrow was one of the five most common species detected in the Study Area during the avian point count surveys (Table 6).

Black-chinned Sparrow Black-chinned sparrows are year-round residents of arid shrublands in southern Nevada, but primarily use pinyon-juniper, montane shrubland, and Joshua tree habitats. They have been found to be most prevalent at the edge between pinyon-juniper and Mojave desert scrub and seem to prefer a blend of woodland and grassland or woodland and shrubland habitats (GBBO 2010). There is no preferred habitat for this species in the Study Area and they are not expected to occur there with any regularity. No black-chinned sparrows were observed during baseline surveys in the Study Area. Potential impacts to sage thrashers from the proposed Project are unlikely but include collisions with Project infrastructure (PV arrays), vehicles, or the gen-tie lines.

Potential Impacts Potential impacts from the Project to these species (all but black-chinned sparrow – discussed above) could include injury or death of individuals from ground-disturbing or other construction activities or collisions; destruction, disturbance, or abandonment of active nests (only Bell’s sparrow); displacement of resident birds; and/or, a permanent reduction of foraging, wintering, and nesting habitat associated with development of the Project. Birds relocating to other suitable habitat nearby may experience stress and energetic costs, and also exert pressure on the resources and the resident birds in the relocation areas. Development of the Project would result in an incremental increase in noise and human presence, and these could cause an indirect impact to the species. Project infrastructure, including the gen-tie lines, and vehicles could present a potential collision hazard. Habitat fragmentation may impact Bell’s/sagebrush sparrow and Brewer’s sparrow because of their preference for large, contiguous shrubland.

Scott’s Oriole Scott’s oriole could pass through the Study Area but is not expected to breed there. They mostly use Joshua tree, pinyon-juniper, oak scrub, and palm oasis habitats and are found in foothills, slopes of desert mountains, and semi-arid plains at higher elevations. They nest in trees of yuccas. No Scott’s orioles were observed during baseline surveys in the Study Area. Potential impacts to Scott’s orioles from the proposed Project are unlikely but include collisions with Project infrastructure (include PV arrays), vehicles, or the gen-tie lines.

Bats Of the 15 special-status bat species with some likelihood to occur in the Study Area, seven are likely to occur and eight have a moderate likelihood to occur. The seven species that are likely to occur include six species that are generally resident to the region (pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, California myotis,

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 40

Yuma myotis, canyon bat, and Brazilian free-tailed bat) and one migratory species (hoary bat) (Table 1). The eight species with a moderate likelihood to occur include seven primarily resident bats (spotted bat, big brown bat, Allen’s big-eared bat, California leaf-nosed bat, fringed bat, silver-haired bat, and big free- tailed bat) and one migratory species (greater western mastiff bat) (Table 1). Some of these special-status bat species may roost in the small to medium sized caliche caves along the upper reaches of the California Wash. However, in general, these species are not expected to roost in the Study Area due to a lack of roosting sites, such as caves, cliffs, rocky areas, buildings, bridges, other structures, and trees.

The Study Area provides suitable foraging habitat for the majority of special-status bat species that occur in the region. However, there is no permanent water in the Study Area, such as a riparian corridor, spring, or other permanently wet area that would potentially increase foraging activity. The BBCS prepared by Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) for the Sunshine Valley Solar Project includes a discussion of how bats may use large solar facilities during foraging and how large solar arrays may attract certain bat species, including several of the special-status species with potential to occur; this discussion is excerpted below (Sunshine Valley Solar LLC 2017):

On a landscape scale, the addition of solar arrays to an area that previously had minimal structural attributes may affect bat activity in several ways. Bats are known to commute and forage along linear landscape elements (Verboom and Huitema 1997). At clearly demarcated edges, such as forest-field interfaces in early stages of succession, all bat species have been shown to increase their activity (Jantzen and Fenton 2013). Morris et al. (2010) found higher concentrations of flying insects on the leeward side of trees on windy nights. As such, it is possible that flying insects could similarly gather in higher concentrations at the leeward edges of the PV solar arrays on windy nights. As observed at CVSR [California Valley Solar Ranch], high frequency bats (California myotis, western small-footed bats, and canyon bats) that forage in situations with clutter (e.g., with shrubs and trees) are likely to take advantage of this effect and are expected to increase their activity at the leeward edges of the arrays (HTH 2013). Additionally, bright night lighting close to the ground can attract flying insects and consequently may increase bat foraging activity near any lighted areas at the Project. (Sunshine Valley Solar LLC 2017: p. 30)

Bat surveys that were conducted in similar habitat in the Mojave Desert to that found in the majority of the Study Area (namely creosote-white burrobush shrubland) found that bat activity was lower in this habitat than in areas that contained features such as linear landscapes (e.g., riparian corridors or edge zones between two habitat interfaces) (O’Farrell 2009 and 2010 as cited in Playa Solar LLC 2016). The composition of the bat species that utilized the creosote – white burrobush habitat during this study was dominated by four common species (96 percent). The permanent removal of habitat for development of the Project is therefore not expected to be a loss of high quality bat foraging habitat for special-status bat species.

Limited information is available on the potential collision risk for bats at PV facilities. During the construction and early operations phases of the Desert Sunlight Project, but not during systematic monitoring, four bat carcasses were found, all special-status species including a pallid bat, a greater western mastiff bat, a Townsend’s big-eared bat, and a California myotis (WEST 2014). The cause of death could not be determined for any of the carcasses, but they were not located in the PV arrays; one was located near a transmission tower, another near the perimeter fence, and two near buildings (WEST 2014). No bat carcasses were detected during systematic fatality monitoring for both birds and bats at the

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 41

California Valley Solar Ranch (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2014) or at the Topaz Solar Facility (Althouse and Meade 2014).

Potential impacts from the Project to special-status bat species could include injury or death of individuals from ground-disturbing, vegetation clearing, and/or other construction activities associated with development of the Project. Project infrastructure, including the gen-tie lines, and vehicles could present a potential collision hazard. Development of the Project would result in an incremental, temporary increase in noise and human presence, and these could cause an indirect impact to the species; however, this is expected to be minimal because construction would take place during daylight hours. Project development could result in a permanent reduction of foraging habitat. Indirect impacts from Project features that may attract bats and/or their prey (e.g., linear arrays, Project lights, and/or PV panel glare) may also occur.

4.0 Bird and Bat Conservation Measures

Impacts to birds and bats from construction, operation, and maintenance of the Gemini Solar Project will be minimized and avoided through the implementation of Project siting and design features, Project- specific protection measures, and Bird and Bat Conservation Measures (BBCMs). Project siting and design features specified in the Applicant’s Plan of Development (Solar Partners XI, LLC 2019, Project management plans, Project-specific protection measures, and BBCMs will reduce the potential direct and indirect impacts to birds and bats from Project development and operation. The Project adheres to the programmatic design features that would be required for all utility-scale solar energy projects on BLM- administered lands and the SEZ-specific design features that are required for projects in individual SEZs from the Final Solar PEIS (BLM and DOE 2012) and ROD (BLM 2012). For this Project, the applicable SEZ is the Dry Lake SEZ, which is located 5 miles west of the Project.

The Project-specific protection measures and BBCMs are detailed below; BBCMs come from the Final Solar PEIS and ROD (BLM and DOE 2012; BLM 2012); this section of the BBCS is largely excerpted or adapted from the Playa Solar Project BBCS (Playa Solar LLC 2016), which is also a PV facility and is located within the Dry Lake SEZ approximately 5 miles west of the Project.

4.1 PROJECT SITING The Project is located 5 miles east of the Dry Lake SEZ, which was identified as part of the BLM’s Solar PEIS (BLM and DOE 2010, 2012) as a priority area for utility-scale solar energy development. The Dry Lake SEZ has been sited to reduce impacts to environmental resources. This Project is not within the SEZ, it is sited within a variance area and the application pre-dates the variance designation. Nonetheless, the Project is sited in an area that has no major constraints for utility-scale energy development. In order to reduce impacts to environmental resources, the following considerations were made in the siting of the Project:

• The Project is near I-15 (less than a half mile away) in an area with some existing disturbance and overlaps a paved road (the Valley of Fire Road), several dirt roads, and a transmission line corridor. • The Project is located near to existing electrical transmission infrastructure (less than 4 miles from NV Energy’s Crystal Substation), such that minimal transmission gen-tie and system upgrades will be required. • The Project is sited in an area that lacks riparian habitats or other features known to attract large concentrations of resident or migrating birds or bats.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 42

• The Project is sited to avoid the larger ephemeral washes in the area, including California Wash • No federally listed avian or bat species are expected to occur within the Study Area, and the Study Area contains no designated critical habitat. • The Project is sited outside of areas designated for environmental resource conservation, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Important Bird Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, important migratory pathways or stopover sites, or other specially designated areas.

4.2 GENERAL DESIGN FEATURES FOR ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following general design features will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to birds and bats, as relevant and applicable. These design features correspond to the requirements within ER1-1 of the ROD (BLM 2012).

• Project developers shall consult with the BLM and other federal, state, and local agencies in the early phases of Project planning to help ensure compliance with federal regulations that address the protection of fish, wildlife, and plant resources, with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. Assessing compliance with pertinent regulations for ecological resources shall include, but is not limited to, the following: . Developing, in coordination with the BLM and USFWS, strategies for complying with regulatory requirements of the BGEPA. . Developing, in coordination with appropriate federal and state agencies (e.g., BLM, USFWS, and NDOW), measures to protect birds (including migratory species protected under the MBTA). . Contacting appropriate agencies (e.g., BLM, USFWS, and NDOW) early in the Project planning process to identify potentially sensitive ecological resources such as aquatic habitats, habitats, unique biological communities, crucial wildlife habitats, and special-status species locations and habitats located within or in the vicinity of the areas occupied by the solar energy facility and associated access roads and rights-of-way (ROWs). . Considering restrictions on timing and duration of activities developed in coordination with the BLM, USFWS, NDOW, and other appropriate agencies to minimize impacts from Project activities on nesting birds. . Considering recommendations contained in the Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: Inventory and Monitoring Protocols and Other Recommendations (Pagel et al. 2010). . Avoiding take of golden eagles and other raptors. Mitigation regarding the golden eagle shall be developed in consultation with the USFWS and NDOW. . Discussing potential impacts on sensitive habitats resulting from operation of vehicles and construction of structures, including transmission lines, within the environmental analysis. . Developing measures to ensure protection of raptors in coordination with appropriate federal and state agencies. . Developing measures to ensure protection of bats in coordination with appropriate federal and state agencies. . Developing measures to ensure mitigation and monitoring of impacts on special-status species in coordination with appropriate federal and state agencies. . Consulting with the USFWS upon discovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species during any phase of the Project. An appropriate course of action shall be Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 43

determined to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts. All applicable terms, conditions, and conservation measures listed in the programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS shall be followed. . Considering plants, wildlife, and their habitats in the facility’s Dust Abatement Plan. . Limiting herbicide use to non-persistent, immobile substances. Only herbicides with low toxicity to wildlife and non-target native plant species shall be used, and determined in consultation with the USFWS. Prior to application of herbicide treatments, a qualified person, such as a biologist, shall conduct surveys of bird nests and of special-status species to identify the special measures or best management practices necessary to avoid and minimize impacts on migratory birds and special-status species. Rodenticides will not be used outside of buildings. . Developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to avoid, to the extent practicable, changes in surface water or groundwater quality or flow that result in the alteration of terrestrial plant communities or communities in , springs, seeps, intermittent streams, perennial streams, and riparian areas (including the alteration of cover and community structure, species composition, and diversity) off the Project site. The SWPPP will comply with the standards developed by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. . Incorporating key elements on the identification and protection of ecological resources (especially for special-status species), including knowledge of required design features, in instructions to all personnel. Incorporate the knowledge into a WEAP that is provided to all Project personnel prior to entering the Project worksite. The WEAP shall be provided on a regular basis to ensure the continued ecological awareness of the Project worksite during all phases of the Project’s life. The base information the WEAP provides shall be reviewed and approved by the BLM prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed and incorporate adaptive management protocols for addressing ecological changes over the life of the Project, should they occur. . Developing measures for fire management and protection that minimize the potential for a human- or facility-caused fire to affect ecological resources and that respond to natural fire situations. . Minimizing impacts to vegetation via mowing portions of the solar array area. . Designating a qualified biologist who will be responsible for overseeing compliance with all design features related to the protection of ecological resources throughout all Project phases, particularly in areas requiring avoidance or containing sensitive biological resources. This person shall be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and the BLM. . Conducting pre-construction surveys in coordination with BLM, USFWS, and NDOW statutes, programs, and policies. . Conducting seasonally appropriate inspections by a qualified biologist or team of biologists to ensure that important or sensitive species or habitats are not present in or near Project site. Attendees at the inspections may include appropriate federal agency representatives, state natural resource agencies, and construction contractors, as appropriate. Habitats or locations to be avoided shall be clearly marked.

4.3 FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION During the construction phase of the Project, the following Project-specific protection measures will be followed:

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 44

• Vehicle traffic will be limited to the Project area unless required due to emergencies or other extenuating circumstances. • Signs will be posted throughout the Project area to remind workers to maintain slow speeds to reduce dust and promote safety. • The Project area will be maintained in a sanitary condition at all times; waste material will be collected in on-site containers and then disposed of properly off-site. • All construction personnel will be provided training on this BBCS and practices to avoid and minimize impacts on wildlife. • Construction personnel will not approach or harass wildlife and will avoid all wildlife to the greatest extent possible. • Construction personnel will notify the biological monitor of any burrowing owl nests incidentally discovered and await instruction. • Within 30 days prior to initiation of construction, a western burrowing owl survey will be conducted in the construction area and within a 250-foot buffer surrounding the construction area. This survey shall be performed using pedestrian transects spaced no greater than 66 feet apart. All burrows with burrowing owl sign will be observed by a biological monitor to determine occupancy. During the breeding season (February 14 to August 31), occupied burrows will not be disturbed. If an active nest is identified, there will be no construction activities with heavy equipment within 250 feet of the nest to prevent disturbance until the chicks have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. The occurrence and location of any western burrowing owl will be documented by biological monitors in daily reports and submitted to the BLM’s authorized biologist on a daily basis. Inactive burrowing owl nests would be collapsed prior to construction by the biological monitor. Within 24 hours of all incidents of disturbance or harm to burrowing owls, the authorized biologist will report such incidents to the appropriate resource agencies. • A qualified biological monitor would be on-site during construction activities to minimize avian- related impacts during nesting season (February 15 through August 31). If vegetation clearing work is scheduled to occur during nesting season, work areas would be surveyed for birds and their nests by the monitor no more than 15 days prior to initial ground disturbance. Construction personnel would notify the biological monitor of any birds or nests identified in the work area prior to construction activities. The monitor will continually look for nesting birds while on-site during construction.

In addition, the following BBCMs have been incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed Project facilities, as relevant and applicable. These BBCMs correspond to the requirements within ER2-1 of the Final Solar PEIS (BLM and DOE 2012) and ROD (BLM 2012), as well as Dry Lake SEZ-design features specified in the ROD (BLM 2012).

BBCM-1 Habitat-altering projects or portions of projects should be scheduled outside of the bird- breeding season, which generally occurs between February 15th and August 31st. If a project has to occur during the breeding season, then a qualified biologist must survey the area for nests immediately prior to commencement of construction activities. This shall include burrowing and ground-nesting species in addition to those nesting in vegetation. If any active nests are found, an appropriately sized buffer area must be established and maintained until the young birds fledge (see for example BBCM-12). As the above dates are a general guideline, if active nest are observed outside this range they are to be avoided as described above.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 45

BBCM-2 To the extent practicable, avoid siting solar power facilities near open water or other areas that are known to attract large numbers of birds.

BBCM-3 New roads shall be designed and constructed to meet the appropriate BLM road design standards, such as those described in BLM Manual 9113, and be no larger than necessary to accommodate their intended functions (e.g., traffic volume and weight of vehicles). Roads internal to solar facility sites shall be designed to minimize ground disturbance.

BBCM-4 Workers must be aware that only qualified biologists are permitted to handle listed species according to specialized protocols approved by the USFWS. Workers shall not approach wildlife for photographs or feed wildlife.

BBCM-5 Habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and resulting edge habitat due to development shall be minimized to the extent practicable. Habitat fragmentation could be reduced by consolidating facilities (e.g., access roads and utilities could share common ROWs, where feasible), reducing the number of access roads to the minimum amount required, minimizing the number of stream crossings within a particular stream or watershed, and locating facilities in areas where habitat disturbance has already occurred. Individualities shall be located and designed to minimize disruption of movement patterns and connectivity of habitats.

BBCM-6 Siting and designing the Project to avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts on important, sensitive, or unique habitats in the Project vicinity, including, but not limited to, waters of the US, wetlands (both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional), springs, seeps, streams (ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial), 100-year floodplains, ponds and other aquatic habitats, riparian habitat, remnant vegetation associations, rare or unique biological communities, crucial wildlife habitats, and habitats supporting special-status species populations.

BBCM-7 Reducing the attractiveness of the solar energy development to opportunistic predators such as desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus), coyotes, and common ravens as described in the Raven Management Plan. Examples include, but are not limited to, the use of litter control programs, measures to discourage the presence of ravens on site, elimination of available water sources, designing structures to discourage their use as potential raven nest sites, , and active monitoring of the site for the presence of ravens. The project will implement the BLM’s Raven Management Plan.

BBCM-8 Prevention of the establishment and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds within the ROW and in associated areas where there is ground disturbance or vegetation cutting as described in the Integrated Weed Management Plan.

BBCM-9 Considering the salvage of Joshua trees, other yucca species, and most cactus species in coordination with the local BLM field office, Las Vegas Field Office.

BBCM-10 Considering conducting interim and final restoration activities as soon as possible after development activities are completed in order to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 46

BBCM-11 Implementing revegetation, soil stabilization, and erosion reduction measures to ensure temporary use areas are restored as described in the Site Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan.

BBCM-12 Conducting a pre-disturbance nesting bird survey within two to four days of ground disturbance. If active nests are detected, the nest area shall be flagged, and no activity shall take place near the nest (at a distance determined by the BLM in coordination with the USFWS and/or NDOW), or until the appropriate agencies agree that construction can proceed with the incorporation of agreed-upon monitoring measures. See Exclusions Zones below for additional information on exclusion buffers.

BBCM-13 Siting and designing Project activities away from habitats occupied by special-status animal species, as feasible. Developers should consider establishing buffers around sensitive habitats to prevent destructive impacts associated with Project activities.

BBCM-14 Locating and designing individual Project facilities to minimize disruption of animal movement patterns and connectivity of habitats.

BBCM-15 Avoiding surface water or groundwater withdrawals that adversely affect sensitive habitats (e.g., aquatic, wetland, playa, microphyll woodland, and riparian habitats) and habitat occupied by sensitive species.

BBCM-16 Implementing current guidelines and methodologies (APLIC 2006 and 2012) in the design and analysis of proposed transmission facilities in order to minimize the potential for collisions or electrocutions of raptors and other birds. In areas considered high risk for collision, place mechanisms on transmission lines at regular intervals that visually warn birds (permanent markers or bird flight diverters) and prevent birds from colliding with transmission lines.

BBCM-17 Best practices will be used in the design of transmissions line to discourage or minimize their use by raptors for perching or nesting. This design may also reduce the potential for increased predation of special-status species, such as the desert tortoise.

BBCM-18 Employing noise reduction devices (e.g., mufflers) to minimize the impacts on wildlife and special-status species populations. Explosives shall be used only within specified times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife or surface waters as established by the BLM or other federal or state agencies.

BBCM-19 Minimizing the number of areas where wildlife could hide or be trapped (e.g., open sheds, pits, uncovered basins, hollow posts, and laydown areas). Movement of a discovered special-status species that is hidden or trapped is prohibited except by a licensed individual. The animal should be moved from the path of harmful activity until it can escape.

BBCM-20 Implementing measures for proper trash removal and storage, such as using secured containers and periodic emptying, on the Project site to reduce attracting scavengers and

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 47

opportunistic species such as common ravens (in compliance with the Raven Management Plan), coyotes, and feral cats and dogs.

BBCM-21 Limiting Project vehicle speeds and using shuttle vans and carpooling in areas occupied by special-status animal species. Traffic shall yield to wildlife, allowing safe crossings.

BBCM-22 Utilizing existing access roads, utility corridors, and other infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible.

BBCM-23 Minimizing vehicle use off access roads and foot traffic through undisturbed areas.

BBCM-24 Constructing fences (as practicable) to exclude livestock from Project facilities; thereby, mitigating harmful effects to ground-nesting birds.

BBCM-25 Prohibiting Project personnel from bringing firearms and pets to the Project site.

BBCM-26 Prohibiting the collection, harassment, or disturbance of plants, wildlife, and their habitats (particularly special-status species) through employee and contractor education about applicable state and federal laws; to be included as part of the WEAP.

BBCM-27 Reporting any wildlife mortality. Observations of potential wildlife problems, including wildlife injury and/or mortality, shall be immediately reported to the BLM or other appropriate agency-authorized officer.

BBCM-28 Conducting pre-construction surveys by qualified personnel, such as a qualified biologist, in areas with potential to adversely affect special-status species (Section 5.10.4.1.1 of the Draft Solar PEIS [BLM and DOE 2010]) and utilizing approved survey techniques or established species-specific survey protocols to determine the presence of special-status species in the Project site.

BBCM-29 To the extent practicable, avoiding placement of transmission towers within aquatic and wetland habitats, or other sensitive habitats. If towers must be placed within these habitats, they shall be designed and installed to not impede flows.

4.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE During the O&M phase of the Project, the following Project-specific protection measures will be followed:

• Vehicle traffic will be limited to public and designated Project roads unless other access routes are required due to emergencies or other extenuating circumstances. • Signs will be posted throughout the Project area to remind workers to maintain slow speeds to reduce dust and promote safety. • Hunting or possession of firearms by Project-related employees and designated contractor(s) in the Project area will be prohibited during construction, operation, and maintenance. • Appropriate erosion-control measures for operations will be identified in the Project’s SWPPP to protect topsoil and adjacent resources and to minimize soil erosion. • Certified weed-free materials will be used for erosion control. • An Integrated Weed Management Plan will be prepared and implemented as a stipulation of the Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 48

BLM ROW grant to minimize habitat degradation. • All O&M personnel will be provided training on this BBCS and take WEAP training to avoid and minimize impacts on wildlife. • Any incidental bird and bat carcass or injury found by O&M personnel will be handled in accordance with the Project’s Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring Plan. O&M personnel will leave carcasses in place and notify the appropriate people to determine species and if regulatory agencies must be notified. If an injured bird or bat is found, the animal will be sent to a local wildlife rehabilitator, when possible.

In addition, the following BBCMs will be implemented during the O&M phase of the Project, as relevant and applicable. These BBCMs correspond to the requirements within ER3-2 of the ROD (BLM 2012).

BBCM-30 During O&M activities at the completed Project site, the Applicant will confine all vehicle parking, material stockpiles, and construction-related materials to the permanently fenced Project sites and construction logistics area.

BBCM-31 The Applicant shall manage vegetation utilizing the principles of integrated pest management, including biological controls to prevent the spread of invasive species, per the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (BLM 2007), and the 2008 National Invasive Species Management Plan (National Invasive Species Council 2008). Consultation with the BLM shall be maintained through O&M of the Project, employing an adaptive management strategy and modifications, as necessary and approved by the BLM.

BBCM-32 The Applicant shall, in consultation with the BLM and appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, manage the Project to minimize impacts on ecological resources during O&M of the Project, employing an adaptive management strategy and modifications, as necessary and approved by the BLM.

Methods to minimize impacts on ecological resources during O&M of the Project shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Turning off all unnecessary lighting at night to limit attracting wildlife, particularly migratory birds. • Monitoring for and reporting bird mortalities that are associated with power lines or other solar infrastructure to the BLM and the USFWS. • Avoiding surface water or groundwater withdrawals that adversely affect sensitive habitats (e.g., aquatic, wetland, playa, microphyll woodland, and riparian habitats) and habitats occupied by sensitive status species. • Removing raptor and other migratory bird nests only if birds are not actively using the nest. . Coordinating with the USFWS and BLM Project personnel in the event that a raptor nest is located on a transmission line support structure. • Maintaining areas left in as natural a condition as possible within safety and operational constraints.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 49

• Avoiding use of guy wires to minimize impacts on birds and bats. If guy wires are necessary, permanent markers (e.g., bird flight diverters) shall be used to increase their visibility as necessary. • Maintaining native vegetation cover and soils. • Instructing personnel to avoid harassment and disturbance of local plants and wildlife. • Informing personnel of the potential for wildlife interactions around facility structures.

4.5 RECLAMATION AND DECOMMISSIONING The following BBCMs will be implemented during the reclamation and decommissioning phase of the Project, as relevant and applicable. These BBCMs correspond to the requirements within ER4-1 of the ROD (BLM 2012).

BBCM-33 Reclamation of the construction and Project site shall begin as soon as possible after decommissioning to reduce the likelihood of ecological resource impacts in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Addressing ecological resource impacts during reclamation and decommissioning shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Applying design features developed for the construction phase to similar activities during the decommissioning and reclamation phase. • Developing and implementing a Decommissioning Plan and Site Restoration Plan specific to the Project, approved by the BLM in consultation with appropriate agencies, that incorporates adaptive management strategies. • Using weed-free seed mixes of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs from local sources where available, as required in the Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan. • Developing and implementing monitoring measures to ensure successful reclamation per the Decommissioning Plan and Site Restoration Plan. • Native plant communities in disturbed areas shall be restored by natural revegetation or by seeding and transplanting (using weed-free native grasses, forbs, and shrubs), on the basis of BLM recommendations, as early as possible once construction is completed. • Portions of the Project area that were disturbed and are no longer needed for operations will be reclaimed as described in a Decommissioning Plan and Site Restoration Plan.

4.6 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY PERSONNEL Lead Avian Biologist The Lead Avian Biologist will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the BBCS and ensuring all monitoring and reporting requirements are met. The Lead Avian Biologist will be approved by the BLM, in consultation with USFWS and NDOW, prior to beginning work. Alternate Avian Lead Biologists will also be designated and approved by the agencies prior to the start of work. The Lead Avian Biologist and all alternates will have the following minimum qualifications: A bachelor’s degree in biological sciences, zoology, , ecology, or a related field and three years of experience in field biology or current certification from a nationally recognized biological society, such as The Ecological Society of America or

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 50

The Wildlife Society; and, at least one year of field experience with avian resources and/or monitoring in the Mojave Desert. In lieu of the above requirements, they shall have the appropriate training and background to implement the BBCS effectively. The Applicant will ensure that the Lead Avian Biologist performs the activities specified in the BBCS. The Lead Avian Biologist may be the same as the overall site lead biologist if the individual meets the approval of the BLM and USFWS.

Avian Biologists Avian Biologists will be responsible for conducting fieldwork to ensure the conservation measures included in the BBCS are implemented, as needed. Field tasks may include nest surveys, golden eagle surveys, and post-construction avian fatality surveys. The resumes of all proposed Avian Biologists will be submitted to the BLM for review and approval. Avian Biologists will have the following minimum qualifications: a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences, zoology, botany, ecology, or a related field; and, at least one year of field experience with avian research and/or monitoring in the Mojave Desert. In lieu of the above requirements, they have the appropriate training and background to implement the BBCS effectively. The Lead Avian Biologist shall ensure that the Avian Biologists perform the activities specified in the BBCS and may assist in the field, as needed.

Biological Monitors The Lead Avian Biologist may designate general Biological Monitors for the Project, as needed. Biological Monitors will have either proven bird identification experience or an appropriate level of oversight by the Lead and/or Avian Biologists. The Biological Monitors may assist with certain avian-related field tasks, such as recording observations of special-status species or avian and bat mortalities and responding to incidental mortality observations during construction and post-construction mortality monitoring.

4.7 EXCLUSION ZONES Exclusion zones will be established to protect bird nests, any areas of high bird and bat use, and any known bat roosts within the Project site and ROWs from Project-related disturbance. Exclusion zones will be determined by species biology, susceptibility to disturbance, and temperament. Vegetation removal will occur outside of the breeding season for bird and bat species to the maximum extent possible. Pre- construction nesting bird surveys will be conducted a maximum of three days prior to work activities in order to locate any active nests, burrowing owl burrows, or bat roosts. If 3 days from the time of the survey pass, the area must be surveyed again. If any active nests, roosts, or burrows are located during these surveys, exclusion zones will be established, as described below. The Lead Avian Biologist will be responsible for ensuring all exclusion zones are correctly established and biologists will monitor nest activity to determine nest fate. Biological Monitors and Avian Biologists working under the direction of the Lead Avian Biologist will also be responsible for managing the collection of data for these exclusion zones, nests, roosts, and burrows.

Passerines and Non-raptors Exclusion zones for active and other non-raptor nests will be determined by the Lead Avian Biologist, in coordination with BLM, based on the species, terrain, habitat, and the existing Project-related activity level (Whitfield et al. 2008). Exclusion zones will initially be a minimum of 100 – 300 feet around any active nest. Any changes to this minimum exclusion distance would be determined by the Avian Lead Biologist and, in the case of any special-status species, in coordination with BLM, USFWS, or NDOW, as appropriate. Changes to the exclusion zone may be made based on various circumstances, including the environmental conditions (e.g., topography or other barriers between the nest and any potential

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 51

disturbance), the sensitivity of the species to disturbance, and the type of construction activities occurring nearby. Nests will be checked within a week prior to construction to determine success and whether young have fledged. The exclusion zone boundary will not be removed until the Avian Lead Biologist has determined that the nest has failed or the young have fledged. Although it can be difficult to determine why a nest failed, because nests fail for both natural reasons as well due to anthropogenic disturbance, efforts will be made to identify potential causes of the failure. Indications of nest disturbance will be documented.

Raptors and Eagles Project-related disturbances such as construction traffic, noise, lighting and dust will be avoided within 500 feet of any active raptor nest and within 1 mile of any active golden eagle nest. Any changes to this exclusion distance would be determined by the Lead Avian Biologist in coordination with the BLM and USFWS. Changes to the exclusion zone may be made based on various circumstances, including the environmental conditions (e.g., topography or other barriers between the nest and any potential disturbance), the sensitivity of the species to disturbance, and the type of construction activities occurring nearby. All nests will be checked within a week prior to construction to determine nest success and whether young have fledged. The exclusion zone boundary will not be removed until the Avian Lead Biologist has determined that the nest has failed or the young have fledged. Although it can be difficult to determine why a nest failed, because nests fail for both natural reasons as well due to anthropogenic disturbance, efforts will be made to identify potential causes of the failure. Indications of nest disturbance will be documented.

Burrowing Owls All active burrowing owl nests will be avoided with an exclusion of 250 feet during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31). Active burrowing owl burrows within the construction area will be passively relocated during the non-breeding season (September 1 – January 31). All occupied burrows outside or adjacent to construction areas will be avoided with an exclusion of 165 feet during the non-breeding season or an appropriate buffer determined by the Lead Avian Biologist. If buffers cannot be maintained outside or adjacent to construction areas during the non-breeding season, birds will be appropriately and passively relocated. Any changes to these exclusion distances would be determined by the Lead Avian Biologist. Nests will be observed at least one per week prior to construction to determine success and whether young have fledged. The exclusion zone boundary will not be removed until the biological monitor has determined that the nest has failed or the young have fledged. Although it can be difficult to determine why a nest failed, because nests fail for both natural reasons as well due to anthropogenic disturbance, efforts will be made to identify potential causes of the failure. Indications of nest disturbance will be documented.

Bats Construction activities will avoid any bat roost sites, maternity colonies, or hibernacula found during clearance surveys. Appropriate exclusion distances will be established by the Lead Bat Biologist in consideration of the disturbance type, distance to roost or hibernacula, time of year, and the duration of the disturbance.

5.0 Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 52

Monitoring will be implemented throughout the construction phase of the Project and for at least two years post-construction, as described below. Monitoring will inform adaptive management decisions regarding any additional appropriate and practicable BBCMs that may be needed in order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for observed impacts.

5.1 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Passerine and Non-raptor Nest Surveys and Monitoring The Applicant will avoid potential impacts to protected birds within the Project site and will attempt to schedule any construction activities that will take place near nesting areas outside the breeding season, generally from February 15 through August 31. If construction needs to occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist will perform pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys in the area immediately prior to commencement of construction activities. Nest searches shall include burrowing and ground-nesting species in addition to those nesting in vegetation. If any active nests are found, an appropriately sized exclusion zone will be established; the buffer will be, at a minimum, between 100 to 300 feet from the nest (see discussion above under Exclusion Zones), or as established by the Lead Avian Biologist, in consultation with BLM and USFWS, as needed. The exclusion zone will be maintained until either the nest fails or the young birds fledge, as determined by a qualified biologist. If active nests are observed outside of February 15 to August 31, they will be avoided as described above.

Raptor Nest Surveys and Monitoring Surveys and monitoring for all raptor nests within the Project site and a 1-mile buffer around the Project site will be performed during the construction phase of the Project. For golden eagles, surveys and monitoring will be expanded to cover all suitable nesting habitat within a 4-mile buffer around the Project site and will be conducted by a qualified golden eagle biologist. These surveys will be conducted once per month during the breeding season (January 1 to August 31) and will entail inspecting all potentially suitable structures in the Project vicinity for the presence of raptor nests to the extent practicable, with some potential access restrictions on private land. Active raptor nests will be monitored twice per month to determine nest fate and make behavioral observations to evaluate the effectiveness of associated exclusion zones. If active golden eagle nests are found within the survey area, the Lead Avian Biologist will coordinate with appropriate agencies to ensure that construction does not result in disturbance of nesting eagles (Appendix B).

Raven Management Plan A Raven Management Plan will be implemented for the Project in consultation with the BLM, the USFWS, and NDOW, as required, to minimize the potential for the Project to indirectly impact desert tortoises by subsidizing raven populations. The Raven Management Plan may require measures such as annual nest removal by a qualified biologist in consultation with the relevant agencies, removal of carrion from the Project site, storage of garbage in raven-proof containers, and installation of anti-nesting devices on structures where raven nests could be built.

Incidental Mortality Observations during Construction All incidentally discovered carcasses of birds and bats (i.e., incidental fatality discoveries by WEAP-trained construction facility workers and staff or environmental staff) will be reported to Biological Monitors and Avian Biologists. Facility workers and staff will be instructed during WEAP training to report mortalities to the appropriate supervisor who will in turn contact the Biological Monitor or Avian Biologist, if present. During construction periods when a monitor or avian biologist is not on site, responsible facility personnel

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 53

will be required to contact a designated on-call avian biologist who will be responsible for going to the site and recording the fatality data. The Lead Avian Biologist will be responsible for keeping records. The form to be completed when a dead or injured bird is encountered during construction is provided as an attachment to Appendix A.

5.2 POST-CONSTRUCTION AVIAN AND BAT FATALITY MONITORING Appendix A is the Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring Plan which outlines the systematic fatality monitoring that will be conducting during the post-construction phase of the Project. This systematic monitoring study will be implemented for at least two years post-construction, with the potential for a third year contingent upon the findings of the first years. Data and results of the study will be used to inform adaptive management decisions and serve as a basis for avian fatality comparisons across other regional renewable energy projects.

Risk Assessment Validation Using data collected throughout this process, the Applicant will use the best available information to validate if there are any identified risks of the Project. The validation process will use data from ongoing monitoring to evaluate if the implemented conservation measures are adequately minimizing impacts to birds and bats to the maximum extent practicable, and if additional and appropriate conservation measures could further reduce bird and bat mortality rates.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management measures will be implemented for two years post-construction, and as needed for the life of the Project. This adaptive management approach will include the following six key concepts described by Williams and Brown (2012): problem assessment; design; implementation; monitoring; evaluation; and, adjustment. Ongoing research addressing avian interactions with solar energy facilities will inform adaptive management decision-making. Several potentially influential studies that are currently being conducted are mentioned in the Avian-Solar Working Group’s Science Coordination Plan, including two United State Geological Survey (USGS) studies that address fatality estimates: one to develop a solar fatality estimator and “evidence of absence” software to improve the accuracy of systematic mortality monitoring analysis, and the other to assess impacts on sensitive birds and bats from solar facilities using demographic data (Avian-Solar Working Group 2016a). Additionally, the USFWS is currently developing guidelines for BBCSs for utility-scale solar facilities, which may include additional information that can be drawn on during the construction and monitoring phases of the Project (Avian- Solar Working Group 2016a).

The Science Coordination Plan also stresses that both a consistent and standardized approach to fatality monitoring across solar development projects and transparency and data sharing are fundamental to improving the assessment of avian-solar interactions (Avian-Solar Working Group 2016a). The Applicant is committed to transparency, data sharing, and adaptive management as part of this BBCS and the monitoring program for the Project. Study methods can be adapted as more information becomes available.

The Project will submit the results of the mortality monitoring to the regulatory agencies on a quarterly basis. The BLM, in consultation with the Applicant, USFWS, and NDOW, will discuss the findings. Because so many aspects of avian-solar interactions are still under study and because of large-scale solar facilities are relatively new, decision making can be complex, and the results of any actions implemented may

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 54

require several years of assessment before they are apparent. After the end of the second year of post- construction monitoring, the Applicant will coordinate with the BLM, USFWS, and NDOW to determine whether additional monitoring would be required. If additional monitoring is required, triggers and thresholds for additional adaptive management measures will be established at that time, and adaptive management will be implemented for the life of the Project, as needed.

6.0 Post-construction Reporting

Summary reports of all biological monitoring activities will be submitted electronically to the BLM, USFWS, and NDOW on a quarterly basis. Summary reports will document the results of the avian fatality monitoring and may include recommendations for adaptive management actions. Reporting will highlight all fatality occurrences detected at the Project, as well as suspected causes of mortality where field- observable evidence exists, with an emphasis on any special-status species fatalities. Maps showing the locations of the mortality events and photos of carcasses will be provided as requested. Mortalities and injuries from power lines will be reported to the USFWS as well as to the BLM.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 55

7.0 References

Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2014. Topaz Solar Farms 2013 Fourth Quarter/Second Annual Report for Avian and Bat Protection Plan and Bird Monitoring and Avoidance Plan. Prepared for Topaz Solar Farms LLC, Santa Margarita, California. Prepared by Althouse and Meade, Inc., Paso Robles, California. March 2014.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017. 2017 Final BLM Nevada Sensitive and Special Status List. October 2017. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/policy/nv-im-2018-003

BLM. 2012. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. October 2012. http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/docs/Solar_PEIS_ROD.pdf

BLM. 2010. Instructional Memorandum 2010-156, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – Golden Eagle National Environmental Policy Act and Avian Protection Plan Guidance for Renewable Energy. July 9, 2010. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2010-156

BLM. 2007. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. US Department of the Interior (USDI) BLM. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html

Bureau of Land Management and Department of Energy (BLM and DOE). 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. Volume 4, Chapter 11: Nevada Proposed Solar Energy Zones. FES 12-24. DOE/EIS-0403. July 2012.

BLM and DOE. 2010. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. FES 10-59 DOE/EIS-0403. Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 11: Nevada Proposed Solar Energy Zones. December 2010. http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/Solar_DPEIS_Nevada_SEZs.pdf.

Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO). 2013. Nevada Bird Count, A Habitat-based Monitoring Program for Breeding Birds of Nevada: Instruction Package and Protocol for Point Count Surveys. April 2013.

GBBO. 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. Available online at: www.gbbo.org/bird_conservation_p

H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2014. California Valley Solar Ranch Project Avian and Bat Protection Plan Annual Post-construction Fatality Report: 16 August 2012 – 15 August 2013. Project # 3326-03. Prepared for HPR II, LLC, California Valley Solar Ranch, Santa Margarita, California. Prepared by H.T. Harvey and Associates, San Luis Obispo, California. March 2014.

Huso, M., T. Dietsch, and C. Nicolai. 2016. Mortality monitoring design for utility-scale solar power

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 56

facilities. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1087. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2016/1087/ofr20161087.pdf

Kagan, R.A., T.C. Viner, P.W. Trail, and E.O. Espinoza. 2014. Avian mortality at solar energy facilities in Southern California: a preliminary analysis. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory. April 2014.

Manville, A. M. 2001. Avian Mortality at Communication Towers: Steps to Alleviate a Growing Problem. B. B. Levitt, ed. In: Cell Towers - Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard? Proceedings of the “Cell Towers Forum,” State of the Science/State of the Law. Dec. 2, 2000. Litchfield, Connecticut. New Century Publishing 2000, Markham, Ontario. Pp. 75-86.

National Invasive Species Council. 2008. 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan. August 2008. Available at: https://www.doi.gov/invasivespecies/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018. California Nevada River Forecast Center: Monthly Observed Precipitation - National Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative Observers, 2001- 2018. Accessed on July 1, 2018. Available at: https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/rainfall_data.php

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018. Web Soil Survey. Accessed June 18, 2018. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2017. Nest Data GIS Request.

Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2018. NNHP online species information. http://heritage.nv.gov/species/and http://heritage.nv.gov/species/process_list.php.

NNHP. 2017. Data search results for Apex project [previous name of Gemini Project]. Data provided to Phoenix Biological Consulting on February 21, 2017. Sensitive data not for public distribution.

Pagel, J. E., D. M. Whittington and G. T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Birds Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Peterson, E. B. 2008. International Vegetation Classification Alliances and Associations Occurring in Nevada with Proposed Additions. Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City.

Phoenix Biological Consulting (PBC). 2018. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Survey Report Gemini Solar Project.

Playa Solar, LLC. 2016. Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy for Playa Solar Project (Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Parcels 2, 3, and 4), Clark County, Nevada. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. for Playa Solar, LLC. May 2016.

Saleh, T. 2007. Effects of Artificial Light on Wildlife. Wildlife CPR Notes. Available at: http://www.wildearthguardiansresources.org/?q=road-riporter/effects-artificial-lighting-wildlife

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 57

Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. (2009). A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, CA.

Silver State Solar Power South, LLC. 2013. Bird and Bat Conservation Plan for Silver State Solar Power South (BLM Case File Numbers NVN-089530, NVN-085801), Clark County, Nevada. Prepared by Ironwood Consulting Inc. and Corvus Ecological Consulting, Inc. February 2013.

Solar Partners XI, LLC. 2019. Plan of Development for the Gemini Solar Project (N-84631). March, 2019.

Sunshine Valley Solar, LLC. 2017. Bird and Bat Conservation Plan for Sunshine Valley Solar Project, Nye County, Nevada. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. April 2017.

The Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group (Avian-Solar Working Group). 2016a. Avian- Solar Science Coordination Plan. November 2016. http://blmsolar.anl.gov/program/avian- solar/docs/Final_Avian-Solar_Science_Coordination_Plan.pdf

Avian-Solar Working Group. 2016b. Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group: Stakeholder Workshop. Available at: http://blmsolar.anl.gov/program/avian-solar/docs/Avian- Solar_CWG_May_2016_Workshop_Slides.pdf

United States Department of Interior (USDOI). 2017. Office of the Solicitor. Memorandum: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take. December 22, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Species List Generator. Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento. Website accessed on March 08, 2018. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

USFWS. 2016. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Rule Revision. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. December 2016. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/FINAL-PEIS-Permits-to-Incidentally- Take-Eagles.pdf

USFWS. 2013. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance: Module 1 - Land-Based Wind Energy, Version 2. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. April 2013. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Eagle_Conservation_Plan_GuidanceModule%201.pdf

USFWS. 2009. Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries. Chapter I - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. Subchapter B - Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants Part 22 - Eagle Permits. Subpart C - Eagle Permits: Permits for Eagle Take That Is Associated with, but Not the Purpose of, an Activity. 50 CFR § 22.26 (a)(2). October 1, 2009.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Ecosystems, Energy and Wildlife, Solar Energy web page. Accessed July 17, 2018. https://www2.usgs.gov/ecosystems/energy_wildlife/solar.html

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 58

Walston, L.J., Jr., K.E. Rollins, K.E. LaGory, K.P. Smith, and S.A. Meyers. 2016. A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States. Renewable Energy 92:405-414.

Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2016. Avian and Bat Monitoring at the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project Riverside County, California, 2015 – 2016 Annual Report. Prepared for Desert Sunlight 250, LLC and Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, Juno Beach, Florida. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne Wyoming.

WEST. 2014. Sources of Avian Mortality and Risk Factors Based on Empirical Data from Three Photovoltaic Solar Facilities. Prepared by WEST. June 2014.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2018. National Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) station, located at Valley of Fire State Park. Accessed on May 14, 2018. Available at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nv8588

West Yost Associates. 2019. "Groundwater Modeling to Assess Water Resource Impacts for the Gemini Solar Project." Groundwater Technical Report, Sacramento.

Whitfield, D.P., M Ruddock, and R. Bullman. 2008. Expert opinion as a tool for quantifying bird tolerance to human disturbance. Biological Conservation 141:2708-2717

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno. Available at: http:/ http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada_Wildlife_Action_Plan/

Williams, B. K. and E. D. Brown. 2012. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Applications Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Personal Communications March 19, 2018. Personal communication between Russell Kokx of PBC and Chloe Scott of PBC via email regarding the species diversity observed during the fall avian point count survey compared with the species diversity observed during the fall desert tortoise survey.

September 24, 2018. Personal communication between Ryan Young of PBS and Patricia Brown regarding bat roosting habitat and caliche caves.

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019 59

Appendix A: Gemini Solar Project Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring Plan

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019

[Refer to Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring Plan for full text]

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019

Appendix B: Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Survey Report for the Gemini Solar Project

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019

[Refer to Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Survey Report for full text]

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Phoenix Biological Consulting Gemini Solar Project December 2019