Biological Evaluation And Management Indicator Species Assessment For The Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination Gunnison Ranger District Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Gunnison County, Colorado September, 2010

Prepared by:

/s/ Matt Vasquez 9/30/2010 Matt Vasquez Date Wildlife Biologist

/s/ Matt Dare 9/30/2010 Matt Dare Date Fisheries Biologist

Reviewed by:

/s/Clay Speas 9/30/2010 Clay Speas Date GMUG Forest Biologist

Introduction ...... 4 Background ...... 4 Location Description ...... 7 Proposed Action ...... 8 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario...... 10 Lease Stipulations ...... 14 Methodology for Analysis ...... 17 Affected Environment ...... 18 Existing Condition ...... 18 Environmental Baseline for Cumulative Effects ...... 20 Sensitive Species ...... 22 American marten ...... 22 Gunnison’s prairie dog ...... 23 Pygmy shrew ...... 23 Bald eagle...... 24 Gunnison Sage-Grouse ...... 24 Brewer’s Sparrow ...... 28 Northern goshawk ...... 29 Boreal owl ...... 31 Olive-sided flycatcher ...... 31 Flammulated owl ...... 32 American three-toed woodpecker ...... 32 Purple martin ...... 32 Northern leopard frog ...... 32 Management Indicator Species ...... 33 Elk and Mule Deer ...... 33 Red-naped sapsucker ...... 35 Rainbow Trout ...... 36 Project Effects ...... 36 Assumptions ...... 36 Changes in Vegetation and Habitat ...... 36 No Action ...... 36 Proposed Action ...... 36 Sensitive Species ...... 40 No Action ...... 40 Proposed Action ...... 40 American marten ...... 40 Pygmy shrew ...... 42 Gunnison’s prairie dog ...... 43 Bald Eagle ...... 44 Gunnison Sage-Grouse ...... 45 Brewer’s Sparrow ...... 49 Northern goshawk ...... 50 Boreal owl ...... 52 Olive-sided flycatcher ...... 53

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 2 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Flammulated owl ...... 54 American three-toed woodpecker ...... 55 Purple martin ...... 56 Northern leopard frog ...... 57 Management Indicator Species ...... 58 No Action ...... 58 Proposed Action ...... 58 Rainbow Trout ...... 58 Rocky Mountain Elk and Mule Deer ...... 59 Red-naped Sapsucker ...... 61 References ...... 62 Appendices ...... 69

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 3 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis

Introduction The purpose of this document is to present the analysis and determination of effects of the alternatives on Forest Service sensitive species (FSM 2670.31-2670.32) and Management Indicator Species (1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). The objective is to establish a standard format to complete required analysis for these species or species groups. This biological evaluation report (BE) conforms to legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. For this project, federally threatened and endangered species were separated and are discussed in a separate Biological Assessment, which can be found in the project record.

Forest Service policy requires that a review of programs and activities, through an effects analysis document (referred to in current Forest Service policy as a biological evaluation or BE), be conducted to determine their potential effect on threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, and Regional Forester-designated sensitive species (FSM 2670.3). Under the ESA, the effects analysis report is called a biological assessment (BA) and must be prepared for federal actions that are “major construction activities” to evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species and critical habitats. The contents of the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature of the federal action (50 CFR 402.12(f)). A BE may be used to satisfy the ESA requirement to prepare a Biological Assessment. Preparation of a Biological Evaluation as part of the NEPA process ensures that TEPS species receive full consideration in the decision-making process.

The 1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR 219.19(a)(6) related to Management Indicator Species (MIS) requires the Forest Service to produce a unique list of species to represent Forest communities or ecosystems. These species and the ecosystems in which they represent must be considered for each project to evaluate consistency with the Forest Plan.

Background This analysis describes the effects of leasing about 3,748 acres of National Forest System lands within the Gunnison Ranger District of the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests to private industry for the development of geothermal resources. This analysis examines the competitive lease application, describes the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for this application area, examines the existing environmental setting, and describes the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 4 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis that issuing the lease would have on Forest Service sensitive species and Management Indicator Species

On federal lands, a geothermal lease is for the heat resource of the earth where the mineral estate is Federally-administered. A competitive geothermal lease nomination was submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – Colorado State Office for approximately 3,748 acres of National Forest System lands with potential for geothermal resources. The nomination is for lands generally located in Sections 9, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34, T 49 N, R 4 E, NMPM; in Gunnison County, Colorado about 22 miles southeast of the town of Gunnison (Figure 1). The land surface is National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG), and the subsurface geothermal resource is administered by the BLM. The lease nomination on NFS lands is in 2 parcels, referred to in this document as the Tomichi Dome and the north parcel.

Figure 1. Project Area Vicinity Map

Adjacent BLM public lands to the west have also been nominated for geothermal leasing. The State Land Board also had interest in accessing geothermal resources on State- administered lands in the vicinity.

The NFS lands in this nomination were acknowledged in the Final Programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (Programmatic EIS) completed by the BLM and Forest Service (FS) in 2008 (USDI-BLM and USDA-FS, 2008) as having

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 5 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis commercially viable geothermal capacity for electrical generation. Information from the Programmatic EIS and Record of Decision were used in this analysis. The Programmatic EIS may be found at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide/Document s/Final_PEIS.html.

Leasing geothermal resources on Federal lands is authorized under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The BLM is the federal government’s minerals manager and is responsible for issuing leases on NFS lands, but can only do so if the Forest Service determines that the NFS lands are available, and consents to leasing.

This geothermal lease nomination will be processed according to administrative procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture for Implementation of Section 225 Of The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Regarding Geothermal Leasing And Permitting, hereafter referred to as the National-level MOU. Under the terms of the National-level MOU, the Forest Service and the BLM committed to jointly prepare NEPA documents that will meet the requirements of both agencies in reaching their independent leasing decisions. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 further requires federal agencies to respond in a timely fashion to applications for energy resources. According to the procedures for geothermal leasing in 43 CFR 3200, the BLM grants access to geothermal resources through a formalized leasing process based on end use. Uses such as electrical generation are known as “indirect uses”, and are leased under a competitive process. Other uses, known as direct uses (such as heating pools, spas, greenhouses, other buildings etc.) also require a lease, however are leased non- competitively. In general, areas are nominated for lease by the public. The geothermal lease nomination subject to this analysis is for indirect uses, and thus would be let competitively.

With respect to geothermal leasing, when the BLM receives nominations from applicants that involve NFS lands, the proposal is forwarded to the Forest Service (FS). The FS is responsible for consenting (or not consenting) to the leasing of NFS lands, for conducting NEPA analysis for leasing, for developing appropriate terms and conditions under which the lease may be developed, and to ensure that doing so is consistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan developed under the National Forest Management Act.

If FS consent is given, the BLM is responsible for conducting geothermal lease sales and issuing the leases. Although the BLM cannot issue a lease without the consent of the FS, the BLM can add any additional terms, conditions or stipulations that it deems necessary and appropriate, and must make an independent decision whether to issue the lease after review of the decision and documentation presented by the FS, and any other relevant factors.

Leasing geothermal resources by BLM vests with the lessee a non-exclusive right to future exploration, and an exclusive right to produce and use the geothermal resources

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 6 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis within the lease area, subject to existing laws, regulations, formal orders, and the terms, conditions and stipulations in or attached to the lease form. Lease issuance alone does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities to explore for or develop geothermal resources without additional site-specific analysis and approval for the intended operation.

If leased, geothermal resource development would occur in the following four phases: 1) exploration 2) drilling operations 3) utilization 4) reclamation/ abandonment Decisions pertaining to surface use and disturbance associated with these development phases are not made at the leasing stage. Rather, decisions for permit-related surface activities are made when and if site-specific surface uses are proposed. Each phase requires a permit from the BLM, each of which would require an application, environmental review, and approval by the BLM. Also at each stage, the BLM (in consultation with the Forest Service on NFS lands) can issue site-specific conditions of approval to protect resource values. In the case facilities are proposed off-lease then the Forest Service would review such a proposal and evaluate it on its own merits, including consultation with USFWS and conducting a NEPA analysis if needed.

Location Description The two NFS land parcels nominated for geothermal leasing are located in Gunnison County, approximately 22 miles southeast of Gunnison, CO, north of U.S. Highway 50 (Figure 2). The north parcel is located north of Tomichi Dome and Hot Springs Creek. The Tomichi Dome parcel includes NFS lands on and surrounding Tomichi Dome. The legal location is described as Sections 9, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34, T 49 N, R 4 E; New Mexico Principal Meridian. The Tomichi Dome parcel is within the Mid Tomichi Creek Comp (1402000389010100 HUC), Spring Creek (1402000389020500 HUC), Horn Gulch (1402000389010800 HUC), Hot Spring Creek (1402000389020100 HUC), and Monson Gulch (1402000389010900 HUC) watersheds. The north parcel is within the Hot Spring Creek (1402000389020100 HUC) watershed.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 7 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Figure 2. Lease Nomination Area Map

Proposed Action The FS proposed action is to consent to the BLM leasing the subject lands by competitive bid for subsequent geothermal resource development, with terms and conditions under which the lease can be developed for the protection of surface resources. Conditions, also known as stipulations for the lease, are designed to be consistent with Forest Plan standards, wildlife conservation agreements, FS policy and direction and applicable laws. Part of the Proposed Action includes adopting the geothermal lease stipulation framework established in the Programmatic EIS for the GMUG National Forests. The BLM proposed action is to: 1) offer the nominated lands for lease with existing and additional stipulations; and 2) amend the RMP to include the additional stipulations necessary for resource protection. These additional stipulations include No Surface Occupancy (NSO) for protection of gullies and steep slopes, geologic hazards, and riparian areas.

The Proposed Action is related to leasing the subject lands only, and does not contemplate or allow any surface disturbing activities.

Lease stipulations are major or moderate constraints applied to a new lease. A lease stipulation is a condition of lease issuance that provides a level of protection for other resource values or land uses by restricting lease operations during certain times or at

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 8 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis certain locations or by mitigating unacceptable impacts, to an extent greater than standard lease terms or conditions. A stipulation is an enforceable term of the lease contract, and is attached to and made part of the lease. BLM can add additional stipulations to the lease during their review. Stipulations may be more restrictive than those in the Programmatic EIS if supported by LRMP, conservation plans, or other direction. The Proposed Action includes adopting the stipulation framework brought forward in the Programmatic EIS for geothermal leasing on the GMUG NFs.

Stipulations proposed for this geothermal lease are consistent with Forest Plan standards, wildlife conservation agreements, FS policy and direction and applicable laws. The lease stipulations are only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which they are applied.

The following descriptions are necessary to understand how stipulations are applied in this analysis.

No Surface Occupancy stipulations are considered a major constraint as they do not allow for development. They are used when standard lease terms and conditions, other less restrictive stipulations, and best management practices are insufficient to achieve resource protection objectives.

Controlled Surface Use stipulations allow BLM to require future activities or development to be modified or relocated from the proposed location if necessary to achieve resource protection. The lessee will be required to submit a plan to meet resource management plan objectives through special design, operation, mitigation, relocation or reclamation measures. Plan must be approved by BLM to allow surface occupancy in these areas.

Timing Limitation stipulations are used protect resources that are sensitive to disturbance during certain periods. These stipulations are generally applicable to specific areas, seasons and resources. They generally apply to items such as wildlife activities and habitats.

To ensure leasing decisions remain appropriate in the light of continually changing circumstances and new information, the BLM develops and applies lease stipulation waiver, exception or modification (WEM) criteria. A WEM must be specifically approved by the agency if the record shows that circumstances or relative resources values have changed, or that the lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable effects. Descriptions of WEMs are given below.

Waivers make permanent exceptions from a lease stipulation and it no longer applies anywhere on the lease.

Exceptions are a one-time exception for a particular site within the leasehold; exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis; stipulation continues to apply to the rest of the leasehold.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 9 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis

Modifications are a change in the provisions of a stipulation either temporarily or for the term of the lease. Depending on the modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied.

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario Because leasing itself does not involve any surface disturbance, it is necessary to project the amount of surface use or activity that may result during lease development in order to disclose potential effects and inform decision-making. This projection of activity is done in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario, or RFD. The RFD serves as a basis for analyzing environmental effects that could result from leasing and developing geothermal resources. There are a variety of factors (e.g., economic, social and political) that are beyond the control of the federal agencies that will influence the demand for and development of geothermal resources. Therefore, RFD scenarios are a best professional estimate of what may occur if leasing occurs. RFDs are not intended to be maximum- development scenarios, nor should it be interpreted that the RFD sets a limit or threshold on development. Rather it should be viewed as a reasonable projection of activities that could occur for the purposes of analyzing environmental effects. It should be noted that an RFD provides a general projection of the types of activity and effects that may occur, but cannot accurately predict the magnitude and extent of the effects due to uncertainty about the timing, location distribution of the geothermal resource, and the likely types of development.

Geothermal RFDs look at the four sequential phases of geothermal development; exploration, drilling, utilization and reclamation/abandonment. The success or failure of each phase affects the implementation of the subsequent phases, and thus the associated environmental effects. More detailed discussion on the individual phases is in the Programmatic EIS, Section 2.5. The RFD also contains an assessment of the potential for geothermal resources to occur.

For this proposed lease area, BLM specialists prepared an RFD for the specific lands involved in the lease nomination (USDI-BLM 2010). The following section presents a summary of the geothermal resource potential and development potential by phase in geothermal development. The RFD assumed one geothermal development project that could culminate in a working commercial binary-cycle geothermal power plant of between 5 and 30 megawatts. Once operational, the project as a whole would likely occur in a two-section area with a small area of actual disturbance in that area. It was assumed that due to the average annual temperatures in the area, that the plant would operate using the dry cooling method which does not generate water vapor; therefore no plumes would be visible. The RFD also projected that geothermal fluids (i.e. water) would be developed in a closed system, and would be re-injected into the geothermal reservoir; hence no water loss would be expected.

Because of the nature of geothermal resource exploration and development, the lack of data regarding the area’s geothermal system, and the areal extent of the geothermal

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 10 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis system, predicting precisely where within the RFDS Study Area (Figure 3) surface disturbance will occur is almost impossible. Unless otherwise stated, the activities discussed below should be viewed as having equal chance of occurring on U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State of Colorado, or privately managed lands. Even though the effects of the Forest Service lease nomination area may be greatly exaggerated, it must be assumed that all future activity may occur on NFS lands in the lease nomination; all activity would occur outside of areas that have a No Surface Occupancy stipulation proposed for the resource being analyzed; and may be subject to other lease terms and best management practices/mitigation proposed which further limit placement of facilities.

Figure 3. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario Study Area

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 11 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis

Geothermal Resource Occurrence and Development Potential The RFD projects that all the nominated lands within the national forest have high potential for geothermal resources to occur, except a small portion on the northeastern- most corner of the northern parcel. The potential for geothermal resources to occur is linked to the presence of the Dakota Sandstone.

For the NFS lands, the RFD projects that development potential is high around the Tomichi Dome and eastern third of the north parcel, and moderate for the western two thirds of the northern parcel. The areas of high development potential are those most likely to see exploratory efforts. Table 1 shows the projected amount of activity by phase. Exploration Exploration will likely involve on-the-ground surveys (detailed mapping, ground resistivity, microseismic, etc.), which would likely entail foot traffic, all terrain vehicle use, and limited vehicular disturbance (e.g., that associated with seismic studies). These activities would be followed by the drilling of a number of geothermal temperature gradient boreholes.

Temperature gradient boreholes are usually drilled with a truck-mounted rig. Rigs of this size typically do not require construction of a drill pad, except for vegetation clearing and leveling if needed. Access would be afforded on existing roads, or could require construction of new temporary roads. Support vehicles would travel to the site on a daily basis. This drilling may last for several weeks.

Temperature gradient wells are not intended to directly contact the geothermal reservoir, and therefore produce no geothermal fluids. Drilling Operations If exploration shows favorable results for a geothermal resource, drilling test, production wells may occur. Drilling is an intense activity that requires large equipment (e.g., drill rig) and can take place 24 hours. Bringing the rig and ancillary equipment to the site may require 15 to 20 trips by full-sized tractor-trailers; with a similar amount for de- mobilizing the rig. There could be 10 to 40 daily trips for commuting and hauling in equipment (BLM 2007).

If a reservoir is discovered, characteristics of the well and the reservoir are determined by flow testing the well. If the well and reservoir were sufficient for development, a wellhead, with valves and control equipment, would be installed on top of the well casing. Excess geothermal fluids are stored in temporary pits or sumps, generally lined with plastic (small sumps) or clay (large sumps). Utilization Utilization and production is the next phase after a viable reservoir is determined and includes the infrastructure needed for commercial operations, including access roads, construction of facility structures, building electrical generation facilities, drilling and

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 12 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis developing production and injection wells, and installing pipelines, meters, substations, and transmission lines. The utilization phase could last from 10 to 50 years and involves the operation and maintenance of the geothermal field(s) and generation of electricity.

Geothermal production wells are usually deep (several thousand feet). The size of the well pad is dependent upon site conditions and on the number of wells for the pad. In order to drill these deep holes, a large drilling rig or derrick would be erected. Various temporary support facilities may be located on-site, including generators, mud tanks, cement tanks, trailers for the drillers and mud loggers, housing trailers, and storage sheds. Drilling operations can occur 24 hours a day.

Utilization operations would include geothermal power plant, which is typically supported by pipeline systems in the plant’s vicinity. The pipeline systems include a gathering system for produced geothermal fluids, and an injection system for the reinjection of geothermal fluids after heat extraction takes place at the plant. Pipelines transporting hot fluids or steam to the plant are covered with insulation, whereas injection pipelines are generally not. When feasible, they would parallel the access roads and existing roads to the destination of the geothermal resource’s water. Pipelines are typically constructed on supports above ground, resulting in little if any impact to the surrounding area once construction is complete and the corridor has been re-vegetated. The pipelines typically have a few feet of clearance underneath them. The pipelines are typically painted to blend in with the surrounding environment.

Electric transmission lines would also be needed to convey generated electricity to the end user. Reclamation and Abandonment This phase involves abandoning the well after production ceases and reclaiming all disturbed areas in conformance with BLM and FS standards. Abandonment includes plugging, capping, and reclaiming the well site. Reclamation includes removing the power plant and all surface equipment and structures (including pipelines and transmission lines specific to the facility), regarding the site and access roads to pre- disturbance contours, and replanting native or appropriate vegetation to facilitate natural restoration.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 13 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Table 1. Projected Activity and Disturbance for Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-75384 Phase Activities Projected short term Projected long disturbance term disturbance 1. Exploration Geologic Negligible None mapping, geophysical surveys Temperature Four temperature-gradient Negligible gradient holes boreholes per section, 0.17 acres disturbance per section on about 6 sections of NFS lands = 1 acre disturbance. 2. Drilling Test Wells 2 test wells at 4 acres each = Negligible, unless test 8 acres temporary (short wells converted to term) disturbance production wells, then 1.6 acres long term. Production 3 production and 2 injection Reclaim to 0.8 acres and injection wells on 4 pads at 4 acres per pad = 3.2 acres wells each = 16 acres long term disturbance Roads 10 miles at 3.6 acres per 4 miles at 3.6 acres per mile = 36 acres mile = 14 acres 3. Utilization Power plant 5 to 30 megawatt plant = 10 10 acres acres Pipelines 6 miles at 3 acres per mile = 18 acres 18 acres Electrical 5 miles at 6.1 acres per mile Minimal, re-vegetation transmission = 30.5 acres would occur after lines installation Total estimated disturbance 119 acres 45 to 47 acres 4. Reclamation/Abandonment All Reclamation and Negligible abandonment, the fourth phase of a geothermal project, is expected to result in temporary disturbance of all originally disturbed acres, after which, the site would graded and vegetated to pre-disturbance conditions.

Lease Stipulations Stipulations for this project which are relevant for this analysis are described below. These stipulations include direction from the 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan for the GMUG National Forests, the GUSG Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005), BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-071 (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/nation al_instruction/2010/im2009-071.html) and BLM IM CO-2010-028, Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2631, compliance with applicable laws and regulations including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, peer- reviewed scientific publications (http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/monograph.aspx), and consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 14 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis

Gunnison Sage-Grouse: To comply with direction from the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005), BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-071, and FSM 2631, the following special constraints will apply: • No Surface Occupancy (NSO) – No surface occupancy in mapped Gunnison Sage-Grouse habitat within 4.0 miles of known Gunnison Sage-Grouse leks (this applies to active, inactive, historic, leks of unknown status or newly discovered leks). When new leks are found after the onset of activities, no additional activity will be allowed beyond what existed when the lek was discovered. This would not apply to operation and maintenance activities. WEMs will not be considered within 0.6 miles of any known lek. WEMs may be considered between 0.6-4.0 miles from leks. WEMs will only be permitted if they are consistent with the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Plan and following consultation with CDOW and USFWS. In addition, there are many overlapping stipulations for different resources which would have to be considered by the line officer when determining whether or not to consider or approve a WEM. If WEMs are approved in the 0.6 - 4.0 mile buffer of leks, then the following additional restrictions will apply, striving to first avoid impacts, then minimizing and mitigating unavoidable impacts:

1. Sites selected for development activities (wells, geothermal plant, powerlines, pipelines, roads or other such permanent structures) should avoid fragmenting or degrading sage-grouse habitat. If possible, locate facilities in vegetation types other than sagebrush and associated riparian areas to avoid impacts to sage-grouse habitat. If powerlines cannot be avoided in sage-grouse habitat, retrofit utilities to minimize perches for raptors. 2. Controlled Surface Use - To protect brood-rearing habitat, a 1,000-ft buffer from either side of a water feature (riparian, wetland, WIZ, and water bodies) would be required. WEMs may be considered for necessary stream crossings or if topographic features are present within this buffer that act as a barrier protecting the riparian area from disturbance; however post-lease development in riparian areas would be minimized thereby reducing impacts on brood-rearing habitat. 3. Controlled Surface Use - Limit operational noise to a maximum of 49 dBA measured 30 feet from the source year-round. This will help protect priority habitats such as lek sites, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat to prevent abandonment of display grounds, and to maintain reproductive success, recruitment, and survival. 4. Timing Limitation – No construction or drilling activities in mapped Gunnison Sage-Grouse habitat between March 15 and June 30 within 4.0 miles of known Gunnison Sage-Grouse leks to prevent disturbances to birds during the breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing periods. Public use of existing open roads would not be restricted unless already covered by a seasonal closure. A seasonal road closure to motorized uses from

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 15 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis March 15 to May 15 is implemented each year to protect Gunnison Sage- Grouse during the lek season. Routine operation, maintenance and site visitations of production facilities will be restricted to occur between 09:00 and 16:00 during the above time period. No human activities would be allowed prior to 09:00 and after 16:00. No development activities within mapped Gunnison Sage-Grouse winter habitat between December 1 and March 15 (this also occurs within the timing limitation for big game winter range described below).

• No Surface Occupancy – Riparian areas, wetlands, water influence zone (WIZ) and waterbodies, or areas within the 100 year floodplain. This is a separate stipulation for the protection of riparian features, but also serves to protect sage- grouse brood-rearing habitat. WEMs may be allowed for stream crossings. Big Game: In coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife objectives and protection of private lands, the following special constraints will apply: • Timing Limitation – No surface disturbing activities within mapped deer critical winter range and elk winter concentration area from December 1 to April 15. No post development site visits outside of the hours of 10:00 and 15:00 during this time period. WEMs may be considered in consultation with CDOW. No Surface Occupancy stipulations for Gunnison Sage-Grouse will also result in protections to big game winter habitat. Raptors: To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and to protect habitat and nest sites for GMUG NF sensitive species, the following special constraints will apply (WEMs may be considered for all these in consultation with CDOW). These stipulations were developed based on raptor timing restriction and nest buffer recommendations from the CDOW and in accordance with the GMUG Forest Plan. • Timing Limitation – No ground disturbing activities from November 15 to April 15 in Bald Eagle winter concentration/foraging area. • Timing Limitation – No activities except for routine operation and maintenance of production facilities within the following designated raptor nest buffers and time periods. 1. Bald eagle – 0.5 mile buffer from October 15 to August 1 (protects wintering and nesting eagles) 2. Golden eagle – 0.5 mile buffer from December 15 to July 15 (protects wintering and nesting eagles) 3. Osprey – 0.25 mile buffer from April 1 to September 1 4. Peregrine falcon – 0.25 mile buffer from February 1 to September 1 5. Northern goshawk – 0.5 mile buffer from March 1 to September 15 • Controlled Surface Use – No new surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities (beyond that which historically occurred in an area) within specified distances of nests and associated nest sites. Current Rocky Mountain Region sensitive raptor species known or suspected to occur on the GMUG NF include: 1. Bald eagle – 0.5 mile

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 16 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis 2. Golden eagle – 0.5 mile 3. Osprey – 0.25 mile 4. Peregrine falcon – 0.25 mile 5. Northern goshawk – 0.5 mile • At the time of development, the most recent GMUG NF sensitive raptor list and associated habitat maps will be reviewed to determine if habitat for one or more raptor species is present. If habitat is present, inventories will be required at the development stage to determine presence/absence of nest sites in the area.

Methodology for Analysis The proposed FS Tomichi Dome lease area was surveyed in October 2009, by Forest Service personnel. Aerial photographs, vegetation typing, and results of those surveys were used to determine preliminary species which may be impacted by the project, as well as species which may have needed further examination. Reviews were conducted to determine which species are known from the area or have suitable habitat present and could potentially occur. Primary sources included district wildlife sightings records, the State Natural Heritage Program database, state wildlife agency information (CDOW), and information from species assessments prepared for Sensitive Species in Region 2 (USDA 2010b) and Management Indicator Species on the GMUG National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2005b – g). Surveys for some species will be conducted subsequent to this analysis but prior to implementation, and if actual results of those surveys differ substantially from predicted values, additional analysis may be required, or specific design criteria or mitigations may need to be implemented to protect species.

The analysis area used for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the 3,748-acre lease area and a 39,848-acre surrounding landscape area coincident with the Tomichi Dome Lynx Analysis unit, which incorporates the watersheds surrounding the project on FS lands. This area is used to provide data consistency across disciplines. Direct effects of this project to the species analyzed herein will likely be restricted to the lease area. However, some species are impacted by habitat fragmentation (caused by roads, utilities, and pipelines), disturbance, or changes in vegetation over larger scales. The analysis discusses changes in vegetation and habitat loss, as this proposed action would alter existing vegetation and convert habitat to an unsuitable condition for some species within the proposed road, pipeline, utilities and pad locations for the long-term (duration of geothermal activities, which is projected to be 30 to 50 years plus the time period for vegetation to recover to pre-disturbance conditions).

HABCAP (Habitat Capability) modeling was not used for this analysis. It was developed as a comparative tool to model differences in habitat capabilities between alternatives by calculating changes in habitat types and structural stages. HABCAP determines a Habitat Capability Index (HCI) for each species from the relative amounts of particular habitat types within the analysis area, based on the species’ uses of that habitat for various functions and at various times of the year. Other factors, such as road density, are included for some species such as elk. It estimates capability at a single point in time, and does not simulate change over time. Long-term changes in habitat are addressed in

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 17 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis the discussion within this document. However, HABCAP is useful only for larger scale vegetation management projects such as timber sales, and impacts of this project at watershed scales would show insignificant changes in the model. In addition, since specific locations and amounts of surface disturbance are unknown during the leasing stage, predicting how much and what types of habitat that would be impacted for use in the model is not possible at this time. HABCAP may show effects of this project due to road construction, but these roads will not be constructed and used at the same time, some will only be open for a short time frame, and their effects, as driving routes, would be restricted to that time frame when each route is in use. The model is unable to clearly show this type of activity and was not deemed useful for that purpose.

Affected Environment Existing Condition R2Veg GIS data as of 14 April 2010 was used in this analysis to describe existing vegetation and habitats within the project area. The analysis area for the Biological Evaluation is the NEPA cumulative effects area described below, totaling 39,848 acres coincident with the Tomichi Dome LAU. The cumulative effects area coincides with the boundaries of two 6th field HUCs and contains all or portions of 15 7th field HUCs. Existing vegetation at the two potential analysis scales (lease area and NEPA cumulative effects area), is shown in Tables 2 and 3. Figure 4 shows vegetation cover types in the lease and cumulative effects areas.

Table 2. Acres of vegetation cover types and habitat structural stages within the FS lease area. Habitat Structural Stage Cover No Veg. Type Structure 1M 2S 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C Total Grasslands 370 370 Bare Soil/Rock 196 48 244 Sagebrush 868 868 Willow 19 19 Aspen 13 84 262 53 303 716 Douglas fir 64 33 61 418 79 655 Bristlecone pine 31 31 Lodgepole pine 74 39 152 391 656

Spruce-fir 101 11 5 73 189 Water 1 1 Total 197 418 887 44 323 307 99 628 845 3,748

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 18 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Table 3. Acres of vegetation cover types and habitat structural stages within the cumulative effects area. Habitat Structural Stage

Cover No Veg. Type Structure 1M 1T 2S 2T 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C Total Forblands 96 6 102 Grasslands 3,644 64 5 3,713 Bare Soil/Rock 222 48 11 32 314 Shrublands 115 13 128 Sagebrush 10,255 5 10,261 Willow 575 575 Aspen 215 1,416 2,650 132 840 3,216 8,469 Douglas fir 123 181 111 297 1,054 786 2,551

Bristlecone pine 31 31 Lodgepole pine 80 107 4,065 3,666 267 2,925 2,022 13,131 Ponderosa pine 7 7

Spruce-fir 4 101 11 10 95 294 515 Water 28 28

Total 250 3,788 197 10,875 80 485 5,763 6,437 711 4,922 6,318 39,825 No Veg. Structure – open water or predominantly barren; little to no vegetation; 1M - Grass-forb, not previously trees (Natural meadow); 1T - Grass-forb, previously trees; 2S - Shrub-seedling, not previously trees; 2T - Shrub-seedling, previously trees; 3A - Sapling-Pole, Crown cover percent < 40; 3B - Sapling-Pole, Crown cover percent ≥ 40 and < 70; 3C - Sapling-Pole, Crown cover percent ≥ 70; 4A - Mature and over mature, crown cover percent < 40; 4B - Mature and over mature, crown cover percent ≥ 40 and < 70; 4C - Mature and over mature, crown cover percent ≥ 70. Vegetation cover types and structure shown in tables 2 and 3 are based on R2Veg.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 19 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Figure 4. Vegetation Cover Types in the Lease Area, Cumulative Effects Area, and Surrounding Landscape

Elevations range from 8,600 ft to 11,465 ft within the NFS proposed lease boundaries. Forest vegetation and structure within the FS lease area include early, mid, and late seral stages of Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, bristlecone pine, aspen, grassland meadows, willow riparian, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana and Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova).

Scattered individuals of ponderosa pine and bristlecone pine were often found in Douglas fir and lodgepole pine dominated stands on the south side of Tomichi Dome. Pure aspen and aspen-Douglas fir mixed stands were found primarily on the south and east sides of Tomichi Dome. Sagebrush plant communities occur in the south 1/3 of the Tomichi Dome parcel. Smaller sagebrush patches overlap into the FS lease area and connect to larger patches on adjacent BLM and private lands on the west and east side of Tomichi Dome. Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir and lodgepole pine was found on the north side of Tomichi Dome. The north parcel consisted of sagebrush, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine and willow riparian vegetation.

Environmental Baseline for Cumulative Effects The lease area and cumulative effects area provides habitat for a variety of sensitive and Management Indicator Species that use mature, old growth, and early successional forest, and shrubland and grassland habitats. These species and their habitat may be influenced

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 20 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis by the cumulative effects of multiple use vegetation management objectives, open road density, recreation, and other human activities. The cumulative effects area has a history of such activities. It is likely that such cumulative actions influence wildlife habitat use and movement patterns throughout the area. The cumulative effects area comprises 39,848 acres coincident with the Tomichi Dome Lynx Analysis Unit. The cumulative effects area coincides with the boundaries of two 6th field Hydrologic Unit Codes and contains all or portions of 15 7th field HUCs. A larger cumulative effects area was used for Gunnison Sage-Grouse that includes the area described above, as well as adjacent BLM and private lands within four miles of the FS lease parcels.

Federal and Non-Federal Actions Federal actions which have occurred in the past and are expected to occur in the future include additional vegetation management treatments (prescribed burns and timber harvest occurring primarily in lodgepole pine vegetation types; Appendix A), permitted livestock (currently cattle) grazing, permitted outfitter guides (horseback rides, but not within the nominated FS parcels, and hunting), permitted fire wood cutting, and disbursed recreation (including hunting). Several easements are currently being administered, including the Western Area Power Administration (230 kv powerline that passes through the lease parcel in T49N, R4E, Sec. 9, with a ROW 125 ft in width), several road easements accessing private land inholdings, and a Ditch Bill easement (Greathouse Ditch, 1,500 ft length by 30 ft width located in Sec. 8, 9, T49N, R43E, NMPM). The Hot Springs Reservoir, totaling 32 acres, occurs on state land adjacent to and south of the north parcel. Road and trail maintenance is expected to continue within the LAU. The Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management FEIS was completed in April 2010, and the Record of Decision was signed on June 28, 2010. Future travel management activities include closing existing roads and trails identified in the ROD and FEIS. Non-federal actions occurring in the area include recreational hunting, mountain biking, and ATV and dirt bike use on existing roads and trails, dispersed camping primarily associated with hunting, and nonspecific dispersed recreation. On private lands, single family homes, ranching, and livestock grazing are the primary uses within the cumulative effects area.

Vegetation Treatments The 39,848 acre cumulative effects area for vegetation includes a combination of various vegetation alteration (burning/harvest, pruning, planting/reforestation, weeding, increasing water yield on rangeland, etc) activities. Between 1970 and 2009, there have been 16,055 acres of various overlapping vegetation treatments. Natural changes to vegetation excluding fire have encompassed approximately 2,810 acres in the cumulative effects area. All of these treatments and changes have had various effects on habitat. These are the conditions that make up the environmental baseline of wildlife species analyzed. The higher elevations of Tomichi Dome appear to be relatively unaltered due to the boulder fields and limited access.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 21 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Recent burns have occurred in the north parcel of the lease and approximately 30 more acres are planned for 2010. Within the reasonably foreseeable future, the Yellow Pine Fuels Reduction Project will overlap the geothermal area lease parcel (northern parcel overlap is approximately 150 acres) and cumulative effects area (approximately 3,465 acres) causing further changes to habitat. Several lodgepole pine clearcuts, the Hicks Sanitation and Wiley Salvage projects, are currently ongoing in the cumulative effects area, totaling 74 acres. These clearcuts do not overlap the lease parcels.

Sensitive Species The Forest Sensitive Species List was reviewed and those species known or suspected to occur due to the presence of habitat were brought forward for further analysis (Appendix B). Information on distribution, dispersal capability, abundance, population trends, habitat trends, habitat vulnerability, and risks based on life history and demographics for these species are available on Region 2’s website (www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp). This information has been incorporated where relevant, but extensive life histories of species are not described herein. None of the sensitive plant species on the GMUG are known or expected to occur in the project area and will not be affected by the project. Plants are addressed in a separate document.

On June 1, 2010, GMUG Fisheries personnel inspected several springs in the north parcel to evaluate the invertebrate communities present. In particular, searches were conducted for mollusks, which could be present in the project area. No mollusks were identified during the field visit and there was no indication the springs constituted unique or rare habitat types that could support rare taxa.

American marten The American marten is known to occur on the Forest and evidence of its presence (tracks in snow) was seen on the northeast side of Tomichi Dome in the project area on October 30, 2009. Suitable habitat is present at higher elevations within the lease area (the marten tracks were observed at 11,349 ft) and at similar elevations throughout the cumulative effects area. Martens are closely associated with mesic, dense coniferous forests (commonly spruce-fir) with complex physical structure which characterizes the location of the documented marten occurrence in the project area. Maternal dens and winter resting sites are associated with large snags, large logs, large live spruce/fir trees and squirrel middens. Timber harvest, and reduction of snags and logs, has altered landscape patterns and reduced habitat quality (USDA 2005a). Marten surveys, using track plate and bait station methods (Zielinski and Kucera 1995) have been conducted annually on the Gunnison Ranger District during the summer/fall since 2003 to document presence and habitat types in which marten were found. Marten were documented in all suitable habitats surveyed (mature spruce-fir), and habitat conditions averaged 70% canopy cover and tree age of 150 years old. See 2005 Management Indicator Species Assessment for more information on marten biology, habitat requirements, populations and trends. (www.fs.usda.gov/gmug).

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 22 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Gunnison’s prairie dog The Gunnison’s prairie dog is a colonial species, which confers an advantage to the species in terms of predator detection and avoidance, but has negative implications in terms of disease transmission. Plaque has had a significant effect on Gunnison’s prairie dog populations and is one of the main factors causing extirpation of colonies. Colonies are typically found on gentle to rolling prairie grasslands and in semi-desert and montane shrublands and grasslands. Grasses are their primary food source, with forbs, sedges and shrubs occasionally used. Two separate ranges have been identified, comprising the montane portion (higher elevation portion in the northeast part of their overall range) and prairie portion (all lower elevations throughout the rest of their overall range). For more detailed information on the biology, ecology, life history, habitat requirements and threats, please see the Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) Conservation Assessment (Seglund et al. 2005) and the USFWS’s 12-month petition finding (73 FR 6660: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-493.pdf).

On February 1, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the Gunnison’s prairie dog is warranted for Endangered Species Act protection in the montane portion of their range (central and south-central Colorado and north central New Mexico), but listing was precluded due to higher listing priorities (http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/gunnisonprairiedog/). The project area occurs within the montane portion of their range and colonies have been documented on the Gunnison Ranger District in shrubsteppe and grassland habitats. Although these habitat types are present in the project area, no active prairie dog colonies were found during field surveys in 2009. Similarly, the BLM conducted surveys for prairie dogs in 2009 but did not identify any active colonies within the proposed BLM lease parcel. Additional surveys for Gunnison’s prairie dog would be required prior to surface disturbing activities. Avoidance of active colonies would be required if discovered.

Pygmy shrew The subspecies Sorex hoyi montanus may occur on the GMUG National Forest. In the Rocky Mountain Region, they appear to be strictly boreal. In addition, moist boreal habitats such as bogs and marshes appear to be preferred (Beauvais and McCumber 2006). According to Beauvais and McCumber (2006), the literature addressing habitat use by montane pygmy shrews is decidedly sparse, but it does present a consistent theme of “wet conifer forest” as the primary occupied landscape. In the Southern Rocky Mountains, all known capture sites are in upper montane or subalpine landscapes dominated by conifer forest and dense stream networks that interact with various bogs, marshes, and other wetlands. Upper montane and subalpine coniferous forest occurs in the project area. While a number of small seeps and springs were documented in the project area, stream networks and associated bogs, marshes, or other wetlands are mostly absent from the project area. Potential pygmy shrew habitat may occur on the northeastern side of the Tomichi Dome parcel, which contains a mix of mesic spruce-fir, Douglas fir and lodgepole pine and several seeps and springs. The shrews’ den may be a burrow or shelter under a log, or may be located in the roots of old stumps. Females generally produce one litter per year, of typically 3-7 young (Beauvais and McCumber

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 23 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis 2006). Habitat for pygmy shrews in the project area appears poor to marginal due to a lack of wetlands within upper montane and subalpine coniferous forest as described above, but they could potentially be present. No small mammal surveys were conducted for this project and none are planned.

Bald eagle The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species on July 9, 2007 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07- 4302.pdf). Bald eagles are protected by the Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagles occur in Gunnison County primarily as winter residents and migrants, and utilize rivers, lakes and big game winter ranges. Wintering bald eagles occur in the Upper Gunnison Basin from October to March, and most are observed along the East, Taylor and Gunnison River Corridors. There are no documented occurrences of bald eagle nesting in the project or cumulative effects areas. A bald eagle winter concentration area (Hot Springs Creek corridor), as identified by the CDOW (Natural Diversity Information Source: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu), overlaps approximately 129 acres of the south half of the north lease parcel north of Tomichi Dome. This area does not contain tall cottonwood trees that would provide suitable roosting habitat or typical characteristics found at winter congregation sites. Bald eagles may occasionally roost in tall mature Douglas fir and ponderosa pine trees near Hot Springs Reservoir and forage within the lease area.

Gunnison Sage-Grouse The Gunnison Sage-Grouse is an obligate of sagebrush plant communities. Sage-grouse depend largely on sagebrush-dominated ecosystems for all their life processes, and they use seasonal habitats that differ in sagebrush plant composition and structure (Remington and Braun 1985). Sagebrush dominates sage-grouse diet during late autumn, winter, and early spring, and is essential for survival of this species (Schroeder et al. 1999).

During winter, slopes with south or west aspects, drainages, and shallow depressions with exposed sagebrush provide preferred winter feeding sites, roosting sites, and escape cover. Lek sites (display sites and breeding grounds) are commonly small to large open or sparsely vegetated areas with an abundance of sagebrush within 300-650 feet for escape cover. Nests are most often placed at the base of a live sagebrush shrub with nest sites typically in taller, denser than average sagebrush stands with abundant herbaceous production, particularly residual cover, to provide screening cover. Depending on habitat conditions, hens commonly nest within two miles of lek sites. Brood-rearing habitat includes sagebrush and associated riparian areas, and grassy meadows with abundant forbs and insects. Based on studies conducted on Gunnison Sage-Grouse, most hens (81%) nest and raise broods in suitable habitats within four miles of the hens’ leks of attendance (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005).

This species exists in 7 separate populations in southwest Colorado and southeast Utah, with the largest population residing in the Upper Gunnison Basin. The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests manage approximately 86,732 acres of occupied Gunnison Sage-Grouse habitat within its borders, comprising almost 11% of the Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 24 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis overall occupied habitat throughout the species’ range (Figure 5). The lease area is entirely within mapped occupied Gunnison Sage-Grouse range. Most of the lease area is within four miles of lek sites, and thus is within a mapped production area. There are no known leks within the Forest Service lease area. Within the lease area, there are approximately 979 acres of sagebrush plant communities potentially suitable for sage- grouse (Figure 6). Mapped winter range overlaps the south and west portions of the Tomichi Dome parcel. Sage-grouse habitat assessments have not been conducted on Forest Service lands within the lease area. As such, optimal habitat conditions are assumed to exist and all sage-grouse habitat within the lease area is assumed to be occupied. Sage-grouse habitat assessments, using the Minimum Structural Vegetation Collection Guidelines from the Rangewide Conservation Plan, would be required prior to initiation of surface disturbing activities. In addition, lek surveys during the breeding season may also be required prior to any ground disturbing activity to determine if undocumented leks are present or if new lek sites have been established.

Although there are no known leks within the FS lease area, within the adjacent BLM lease area, there is one active lek (Vito). This lek is within 0.5 miles of the FS boundary and has been consistently active each year. Using the 2010 lek count data for the Vito lek (Frey and Diamond 2010), the estimated 2010 population of this lek is 9.4 males and 15.1 females, for a total estimated population of 24.5. This lek within the BLM lease area represents less than 1% of the Gunnison Basin population, but there are several leks within the surrounding area with a four mile buffer that overlaps the lease area. Birds from these leks may utilize the area for nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat. The Rangewide Conservation Plan uses a four-mile buffer of leks to identify the area typically used by sage-grouse throughout the year. This buffer represents the core area a grouse uses for breeding and summer-fall seasonal habitat and accounts for 81% of location data based on radio-telemetry studies (Appendix J of the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan).

Based on the 2010 Gunnison Basin Gunnison Sage-Grouse Lek Count Summary (Frey and Diamond 2010), the minimum population estimate for the known Gunnison Basin leks is 3,656 birds. An analysis of lek status and lek counts was conducted of leks whose 4-mile buffer overlapped the Forest Service lease area, which includes four active leks from the Monson Gulch and Waunita Lek Areas (Figure 7). Using the population estimate formula from the Rangewide Conservation Plan (Number of males observed divided by 53% for male population estimate; estimated male population multiplied by 1.6 for female population estimate), a minimum population estimate for these four leks based on 2010 lek count data is 89 males and 142 females for a total of 231 birds, based on a total high male count of 47 birds. The estimated 231 birds within four miles of the FS lease area accounts for 6.3% of the Gunnison Basin Population. During seasonal movements and use of seasonal habitats, suitable sage-grouse habitat within the FS lease area could potentially be used by birds from this estimated population, which could be negatively affected from geothermal development. Wisdom et al. (In press) conducted a quantitative analysis of factors associated with extirpation of sage-grouse, and determined that there are currently no strongholds (areas of population persistence that are at low risk of extirpation) for Gunnison Sage-Grouse. Wisdom et al. (In press)

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 25 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis recommends holistic management approaches including conserving existing habitats and populations combined with restoring habitat to help maintain population persistence.

On November 23, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a status review (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-28047.pdf) of the Gunnison Sage-Grouse to determine if the species should be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. On September 27, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the species warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that proposing to list the species is precluded by the need to address other higher priority species (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/10-67.htm). As such, the Gunnison Sage-Grouse is designated as a candidate for Endangered Species Act protection. If Gunnison Sage-Grouse are proposed for listing in the future, the USFS will consult with USFWS on the impacts and affect determination of any future proposed geothermal development.

Figure 5. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Habitat Status on the GMUG NF

Tomichi Dome

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 26 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Figure 6. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Winter Range, Production Area and Habitat within the Lease Area

Figure 7. Overlap of 4-Mile Lek Buffers with Lease Area

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 27 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Brewer’s Sparrow The distribution of the Brewer’s sparrow is largely determined by the distribution of sagebrush (Holmes and Johnson 2005). The GMUG National Forest in well within the distribution range of the Brewer’s sparrow. They breed regularly within sagebrush shrubsteppe habitats and less commonly in mountain shrub habitats on the Forest and throughout western, central, and eastern portions of Colorado. The current breeding distribution of the Brewer’s sparrow in all of North America is assumed to be similar to the historical distribution (Dobkin and Sauder 2004), which is largely tied to the distribution of sagebrush throughout the western states.

The Brewer’s sparrow is considered an obligate of sagebrush communities (Braun et al. 1976, Paige and Ritter 1999, Holmes and Johnson 2005). Throughout most of its breeding range, the Brewer’s sparrow is most closely associated with landscapes dominated by big sagebrush (Weins and Rotenberry 1981, Rotenberry et al. 1999), which is also evident on the GMUG National Forest. Factors that influence Brewer’s sparrow occupancy and abundance include the amount of sagebrush cover, sagebrush patch size, spatial distribution of patches, and the extent of disturbance and fragmentation. Table 4 reflects habitat characteristics for Brewer’s sparrow detections on the Forest. Although a greater proportion of detections occurred in the grassland cover type (41% of all detections), it is important to note that shrubs were a habitat component within this cover type (shrub cover % ranged from 14 – 40%) and was likely an important factor influencing Brewer’s sparrow occupancy of this habitat type.

Table 4. Vegetation cover type, habitat structural stage, and landscape-level habitat characteristics for Brewer’s sparrow detections on the Forest. Brewer’s sparrows were detected by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory on point-count bird transects conducted from 1998 to 2004. No. of detections by cover type and habitat Landscape-level habitat characteristics structural stage (HSS) Shrub Cover No Mean Shrub Slope % Mean Elevation Mean Patch Size Mean Patch 1M 2S Cover % Type data Cover % Range Slope % Range (ft) Elevation Range (ac) Size (ac) Range 3 11,365- Forb-land 9-20 13 18-34 23 11,581 28-67 54 (4%) 12,013 Grass- 34 7,757- 14-40 26 11-83 20 9,506 14-962 460 land (41%) 12,094 Bare 1 2 11,658- 5-10 7 28-46 40 11,873 33-47 38 soil/rock (1%) (2%) 11,981 Gambel- 4 7,918- 60-62 61.5 13-24 16 7,931 37-67 45 oak (5%) 7,935 22 8,739- Sagebrush 40-50 40.45 14-26 15 8,848 495-856 839 (27%) 8,853 7 11,744- Willow 50-60 56 22-36 24 11,843 28-153 89 (9%) 11,919 9 No data (11%) 7,757- Total: 38 33 11 5-62 34 11-83 20 9,628 14-962 482 12,094 1M – Grass-forb (natural meadow); 2S – Shrub-seedling (not previously trees)

The Brewer’s sparrow has a maximum shrub canopy height threshold, typically utilizing shrubs with an average height of less than five feet (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Petersen and Best (1985) and Sarell and McGuinness (1996) reported that Brewer’s sparrows rarely used shrubs less than 20 inches tall. Brewer’s sparrows occur less frequently in shrubby openings in pinyon-juniper and mountain mahogany woodlands (Sedgewick 1987) and large shrubby parklands within coniferous forests (Rotenberry et al. 1999). They have also been found at high elevations above timberline and in shrubby montane valleys

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 28 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis dominated by low-growing willow and shrubs (Doyle 1997, Rotenberry et al. 1999). Observations and detections of Brewer’s sparrows on the Forest have been consistent with reports documented in the literature. From 1999 to 2004, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory detected 82 Brewer’s sparrows on 11 transects, primarily in grassland and sagebrush dominated habitat types on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005h).

On the Forest, Brewer’s sparrow habitat is widely distributed but occurs in small, often isolated habitat patches. Primary habitat includes areas dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp.), encompassing approximately 40,457 acres. Secondary habitat consists of approximately 40,711 acres and is comprised of mountain shrub (willow, mountain mahogany, snowberry, or other woody shrublands other than sagebrush), sagebrush transition areas, and pinyon-juniper woodlands containing large meadows with a shrubby component. Brewer’s sparrows are most abundant in ecologically healthy shrub communities consisting of tall shrubs in a clumped distribution.

The Brewer’s sparrow is considered globally “secure” by the Natural Heritage Program due to its wide distribution across North America, yet according to the Breeding Bird Survey, Brewer’s sparrow populations have declined by over 50 percent during the past 25 years (Holmes and Johnson 2005). Within Region 2 and the state of Colorado, Brewer’s sparrow populations have exhibited similar long-term declines, exceeding national trends. Brewer’s sparrows have been detected on seven Breeding Bird Survey routes on the Forest, with an insignificant decline observed within the Uncompahgre Plateau Geographic Area, insignificant increases observed within the North Fork and Grand Mesa Geographic Areas, and an insignificant increase observed within the Gunnison Basin Geographic Area. Single site analysis on Breeding Bird Survey routes within the Forest may not be valid due to low sample size and the amount of suitable Brewer’s sparrow habitat sampled by the routes; from 1966-2003, only three percent (3,055 ac) of all sagebrush habitat on the Forest (101,838 ac) was sampled by the Breeding Bird Survey. On the Forest, from 1999 to 2004, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) detected 82 Brewer’s sparrows on 11 transects, primarily in grassland and sagebrush dominated habitat types (USDA Forest Service 2005h). Low detection rates of Brewer’s sparrows by the RMBO during that time period are likely attributed to a lack of sampling effort in sagebrush habitats.

Suitable Brewer’s sparrow habitat within the lease area comprises approximately 979 acres. Neotropical migrant point-count bird surveys or breeding bird surveys have not been conducted in the lease area. Due to similar habitat requirements as Gunnison Sage- Grouse in terms of well-distributed, contiguous, large patches of big sagebrush, No Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Use, and Timing Limitation stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse should serve to protect Brewer’s sparrow habitat and avoid or minimize disturbances to breeding birds.

Northern goshawk This species occurs on the GMUG NF. Nesting occurs in mature forest types (spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine and aspen). Foraging habitat may include younger or

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 29 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis more open canopy forests. The goshawk may be vulnerable to nest abandonment due to disturbance within the area. Alternate nests are commonly used, but nest tree fidelity was stronger in uncut forests compared to treated forests (USDA 2005a).

Table 5. Potentially suitable northern goshawk habitat on the Forest¹ (USDA 2005f) Secondary Habitat Primary Habitat % of Cover Type Total Overall % of 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C Acres Habitat2 GMUG3

Aspen 0 4,743 55,301 211,399 41,446 23,567 227,148 176,308 739,912 28 22

Lodgepole 0 758 7,100 124,674 54,741 4,658 49,472 38,887 280,290 11 8 Pine Spruce-fir 0 269 38,910 99,888 11,933 72,923 322,729 201,388 748,040 28 22 Ponderosa 0 251 10,530 13,060 94 42,180 44,102 965 111,182 4 3 Pine

Primary Habitat Douglas-fir 0 0 3,396 8,226 2,416 8,848 16,192 6,590 45,668 2 1 Blue Spruce 0 0 101 242 560 234 597 836 2,570 0 0

Cottonwood 0 0 248 100 0 2,530 1,532 42 4,452 0 0 Riparian Pinyon- 0 0 28,542 37,171 625 29,956 39,064 1,554 136,912 5 4 Juniper Gambel Oak 0 291,855 82 0 0 416 0 0 292,353 11 9 Mountain 12 165,019 0 0 0 0 0 0 165,031 6 5 Shrub Sagebrush 0 101,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 101,833 4 3 Secondary Habitat Wet Meadow 4,574 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,574 0 0

Total Acres 4,586 564,728 144,210 494,760 111,815 185,312 700,836 426,570 2,632,817 100 79

Primary Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,836 426,570 1,127,406 43 34

Secondary Habitat 4,586 564,728 144,210 494,760 111,815 185,312 39,064 1,554 1,546,029 59 46 Indicates habitat designated as primary for both the breeding season and during winter. Indicates habitat designated as primary for winter only. ¹ This table displays acreage estimates for cover types and habitat structural stages that have been documented to be used by goshawks, particularly on the Forest. Primary habitat is capable of providing the habitat needs necessary to meet all life requirements of goshawks; secondary habitat is capable of meeting one or more, but not all, life requirements of goshawks. 2 Overall habitat includes the habitat cover types that have been documented to be utilized by northern goshawks based on literature review and known goshawk distribution on the Forest. 3 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests R2-Veg CVU Total Acres: 3,334,709 acres (includes approximately 381,210 acres that fall outside the Forest boundary)

Based on actual known locations of nest sites, suspected breeding territories, and sightings, the northern goshawk appears to be well distributed throughout the GMUG in suitable habitat. Records of known goshawk nest activity on the GMUG show that numbers of breeding goshawks and nest success has remained relatively stable, although low over a 17-year period (USDA 2001). Breeding Bird Survey data show a slight increasing trend for this species in Colorado from 1980-2006 (Sauer et al. 2008).

The primary threat to goshawk populations is alteration of its preferred habitat from timber management practices. Although the goshawk uses a wide range of forest communities during the breeding season, it prefers mature and old growth forest for nesting and hunting. Although there is some evidence goshawks are resilient of forest fragmentation and can re-establish when cleared areas are reforested, the thresholds for population persistence have not been identified. Issues related to habitat alteration include

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 30 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis forest fragmentation, creation of even-aged, monotypic stands, potential increase in area of younger age class, and loss of tree species diversity (Kennedy 2003).

There are no known goshawk nests within or immediately adjacent to the proposed lease area. However, goshawk nests have been documented approximately one mile north of Hot Springs Reservoir and the north lease parcel (Gunnison Ranger District Wildlife Records, M. Vasquez pers. obs.). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that a goshawk territory may overlap the north lease parcel. The area on the south side of Tomichi Dome within the Tomichi Dome lease parcel contains a large, mature aspen/mixed conifer stand with topographic features (intermittent drainages and relatively flat areas) similar to other occupied territories on the district. Much of the remainder of the forested portion of the lease modification area is suitable habitat, but less likely to contain a goshawk nest than the area described above, due to steeper terrain and/or lack of surface water and forest structure used for nest sites. Surveys for goshawk are planned prior to initiation of surface activities. If goshawks are located in this area, the project will be implemented in accordance with the lease stipulations for this project, which are in compliance with standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan, specific to goshawk.

Boreal owl This species is known to occur on the Forest. Boreal owls in this portion of the state are closely associated with dense coniferous forests, especially spruce-fir. This habitat occurs on the upper elevations of the north and northeasterly side of the Tomichi Dome lease parcel, and at lower elevations bordering state and private land at the north end of the Tomichi Dome parcel. Boreal owls may also occupy conifer inclusions within aspen stands at lower elevations on the north end of the Tomichi Dome parcel and on adjacent state and private lands north of Tomichi Dome. There have been no owl surveys conducted on the project to date. Surveys for boreal owl would be planned prior to initiation of surface activities. Depending on accessibility of the project area and snow conditions during optimal survey periods, surveys may not be physically possible to safely conduct within some areas of the lease area (i.e. the northeast side of Tomichi Dome) prior to project implementation. However, areas of potentially suitable boreal owl habitat may overlap areas identified for No Surface Occupancy or Controlled Surface Use stipulations due to geological hazards and unstable slopes.

Olive-sided flycatcher This species is known to occur on the Forest. They primarily breed in spruce/fir forest, but use the forest-opening ecotone and are a colonizer of post-disturbance habitats. Openings, conifers, snags and an abundant insect food source are the crucial elements (USDA 2005a). They occur less regularly and less abundantly in deciduous or mixed aspen/conifer forests (Kingery 1998). This species shows a relatively stable trend in Colorado (Sauer et al. 2008). Olive-sided flycatchers are occasionally seen and/or heard on the district, in a variety of habitats, usually in areas containing snags and near water or large openings during the breeding season and while foraging (M. Vasquez, pers. obs.). This species has not been observed in or near the project area but suitable habitat is present.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 31 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Flammulated owl This species is known to occur on the Forest. Flammulated owls have a strong association with ponderosa pine, but also use aspen forests in the montane life zone. Locally, ponderosa pine is widely scattered and most known owl locations are in aspen. On the Gunnison Ranger District, flammulated owls have been detected in montane aspen/Douglas fir mixed forest. This species is migratory, but shows high site tenacity by adults. As an insectivore, they can occur at relatively high densities compared to other owls (Hayward and Verner 1994, USDA 2005). These owls depend on cavities for nesting, open forests for catching insects, and brush or dense foliage for roosting (Kingery 1998).

Flammulated owls are documented on other portions of the GMUG NF, utilizing nest boxes (NRIS FAUNA database). No Breeding Bird Survey information is available for this species. There have been no owl surveys conducted on the project to date, but owl surveys would be planned within suitable habitat prior to project implementation.

American three-toed woodpecker This species is known to occur on the Forest, and while uncommonly observed, is present and breeds and forages in spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests on the district (M. Vasquez, pers. obs., Gunnison Ranger District Wildlife Observation Records). This species has not been detected within the lease area, but no bird survey work has been done in this area to date. Breeding bird survey information for this species is relatively scarce, and shows a slight downward trend in Colorado from 1966-2007. Recent large- scale beetle kills in other parts of the Rocky Mountains may influence overall numbers of this species in the coming years. Suitable habitat is present for this species within the lease area, primarily in the north and northeast side of the Tomichi Dome parcel.

Purple martin This species is known to occur on the Forest and is primarily associated with patches of mature to decadent aspen. Nest site availability may be a key limiting factor to populations in R2 (USDA 2005a). The preferred habitat of purple martins in the Rocky Mountains is mature aspen forest with nearby meadows and open water. Martins nest in cavities in live aspen trees (Wiggins 2005). This species shows an upward population trend in Colorado but is relatively stable to slightly decreasing across the US (Sauer et al. 2008). Colonies of purple martins are not well known on the district, but martins are known to occur north of the town of Crested Butte. Potential nesting habitat is present in the project area, primarily in mature aspen stands on the south and east sides of Tomichi Dome. Additional bird surveys will be required in this area prior to project implementation and any nest sites located near proposed surface disturbance activities would be avoided if possible.

Northern leopard frog This species is widespread and is known to occur on the Forest. Population trends are expected to be downward throughout much of their range. The formerly abundant

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 32 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis northern leopard frog has become scarce in many areas of Colorado due at least in part to changes in habitat. The species is also susceptible to fungal infections which have been known to impact amphibian populations. Typical habitats include wet meadows, and the banks and shallows of marshes, ponds, glacial kettle ponds, beaver ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams and irrigation ditches (Hammerson 1999). Local habitats at known occupied sites on the GMUG include stock ponds, reservoirs, slump ponds, seeps, and other riparian areas (D. Garrison, pers. obs., Paonia Ranger District). During the wet season, leopard frogs disperse along aquatic and riparian corridors (USDA 2005a).

There are records of northern leopard frogs in Garfield, Mesa, Delta and Gunnison counties (Colorado Herpetological Society website). In the upper Gunnison Basin, leopard frogs have been documented in the Tomichi Creek corridor. Leopard frogs were last documented within the District boundaries during the mid-1990s. In 2002, previously known occupied areas, based on records from the mid-90s, were visited with no leopard frogs found. Suitable leopard frog habitat appears scarce within the lease area. There are eight seeps and 16 springs identified within the lease area that could potentially provide amphibian habitat. Within the cumulative effects analysis area, ponds, seeps, riparian areas and perennial streams are present that may support amphibians. Tiger salamanders and chorus frogs have been observed within the cumulative effects area, but leopard frogs have not been documented and no leopard frog surveys were conducted in the lease area. Surveys will be conducted in the lease area before surface disturbing activities are authorized, to determine frog presence/absence in the project area.

Management Indicator Species A complete table of all of the GMUG Management Indicator (MIS) species is presented in Appendix C. The northern goshawk, American marten and Brewer’s sparrow are also sensitive species and are discussed as such. The Abert’s squirrel is a ponderosa pine obligate, is not known or expected to occur in this area as no suitable habitat is present, and will not be discussed. The Merriam’s turkey is associated with Gambel oak, pinyon- juniper, and ponderosa pine and does not occur within the project or cumulative effects areas as no suitable habitat is present. Although not listed as a MIS, mule deer are also analyzed collectively with elk due to the occurrence of summer and winter range within the project area and sensitivity of this species to impacts during winter.

Elk and Mule Deer Elk and deer are widespread and disperse readily across landscapes, with few habitat- related limitations. Elk populations are abundant (and stable or increasing) on the Forests in R2 and the GMUG. Deer populations in the Upper Gunnison Basin declined substantially from increased winter mortality during harsh winter conditions in 2007/2008. Value of habitats on public lands is increasing as habitat on adjacent private lands is lost to human development. Females are sensitive to disturbance during the calving and fawning season and herds are sensitive to disturbance in the winter (USDA 2005b).

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 33 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Elk and deer use a combination of open meadows and shrublands for foraging and forested areas for cover, calving and thermal regulation. The elk and deer herds in the project and cumulative effects areas are migratory, using higher elevation forests, meadows, and alpine areas during the summer. The intensity of use between the ungulates varies by season. The lease area lies entirely within elk and deer summer range. The southern half of the lease is mapped as winter range for deer and elk, and includes part of a winter concentration area for elk totaling 1,453 acres within the FS boundaries (Figure 8). This winter concentration area overlaps adjacent BLM lands and comprises sagebrush and scattered trees transitioning into forest. Up to 150 elk occupy this concentration area throughout the winter and spring. Approximately 188 acres in the south end of the lease area are mapped as severe winter range for deer. No elk production areas or deer winter concentration areas are identified within the lease boundaries. An elk production area is mapped immediately north of the Tomichi Dome parcel, on private and state land, and a production area is mapped east of the project area in the Quakey Mountain and Black Sage Pass vicinity (http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/Maps). Fawning likely occurs in or near the lease area.

The proposed project occurs within the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s (CDOW) Game Management Unit (GMU) 551, which is part of elk Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-43 and deer DAU D-22. DAU E-43 and D-22 also includes GMU 55. The elk population estimate for E-43, based on 2009 post- hunting surveys, was 5,000 elk (CDOW 2010a), exceeding the post-hunt population objective of 3,000-3,500. CDOW estimated that during the 2009 elk hunting season for GMU 551 there were 1,997 total hunters, who harvested 347 elk, a 17% success rate (CDOW 2010). Although exceeding post-hunt population objectives, the elk population in E-43 has remained stable to slightly declining over the last 15 years. The current management objectives are based on DAU plans written in 2001 that were based on previously sanctioned population models. The CDOW recently modified their methods for modeling big game populations resulting in population estimates that are no longer in sync with current management plans. The CDOW plans to update elk DAU plans in the near future and it is likely that objectives will be set slightly higher than current objectives.

The deer population estimate for deer DAU D-22, based on 2009 post-hunting surveys, was 3,980 deer (CDOW 2010c), below the post-hunt population objective of 6,500-7,500. Deer post-hunt population estimates for D-22 have been below objectives since the severe winter of 2007/2008, which brought record snowfall to the Upper Gunnison Basin resulting in increased winter mortality. CDOW estimated that during the 2009 deer hunting season for GMU 551 there were 124 hunters, who harvested 44 deer, a 35% success rate (CDOW 2010b).

The primary issues affecting elk and deer distribution are lack of habitat security due to motorized and non-motorized travel and recreation activities, and loss of habitat on private land from development (USDA 2005b-c). The Forest Service Tomichi Dome lease parcel provides good habitat security for big game due to its low motorized route density, limited access, and low human use when compared to many other areas of the Upper Gunnison Basin. Geothermal development could potentially impact the quality

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 34 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis and quantity of winter range and big game movement patterns (i.e., displace wintering animals to adjacent private lands).

Figure 8. Elk and Deer Winter Range and Elk Production Areas

Red-naped sapsucker In Colorado, red-naped sapsuckers forage in aspen, willows and cottonwoods close to their nest sites, which are almost exclusively in mature aspen stands. Typical nest stands, dominated by large aspen, have a variety of diseases that create the heart rot needed for suitable cavity excavation (Kingery 1998). Nest stands have trees infected with shelf or heartwood fungus (for drilling nest cavities) and nearby willow stands (for drilling sap wells).

According to BBS, populations appear to be stable or increasing in the United States, with areas of local declines. From the period 1966 to 2006, the 3 sapsucker species (combined in the BBS analysis) have exhibited a positive trend of +3.4%. Within Colorado, populations have exhibited similar but higher upward trends (Sauer et al. 2007). Red-naped sapsuckers have not been observed in the project area, but surveys during the breeding season have not been conducted. Red-naped sapsuckers are seen in aspen stands throughout the district in relatively low numbers (M. Vasquez pers. obs.). Suitable habitat is present in the project area consisting of mature aspen stands primarily on the south and east side of Tomichi Dome.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 35 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Rainbow Trout Status and trend of populations and habitat for rainbow trout on the GMUG is summarized in a Forest-wide assessment for the species (www.fs.usda.gov/gmug). Rainbow trout are known to occur in twenty-nine 6th level watersheds (13% of watersheds) on the Forest. Both juvenile and adult fish have been collected indicating reproduction and recruitment is occurring in the populations. Habitat has been inventoried on 224 stream reaches using various protocols. Habitat is considered to be in good to excellent condition with a stable or improving trend.

Of the three species of common trout, only rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) may be present in the project area. The only known population of rainbow trout in the lease nomination vicinity is at Hot Springs Reservoir which is managed as a put-and-take fishery and stocked with rainbow trout each year. There is no known over-winter recruitment and the fishery is maintained by annual stocking. Individual fish may escape into Hot Springs Creek downstream of Hot Springs Reservoir but rainbow trout have not been found by the Colorado Division of Wildlife during sampling in the creek.

Project Effects Assumptions For this analysis, all wildlife lease stipulations were considered as part of the proposed action, and all best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook are assumed to be used as needed for the project.

Changes in Vegetation and Habitat No Action No direct or indirect human-caused change in existing condition of current vegetation and habitat is anticipated if no action is undertaken for this project. Conditions will continue as they currently exist, modified as per the other actions given in the cumulative effects contributions described herein and existing natural processes. Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) is documented on the Gunnison Ranger District and aspen stands may be affected within the cumulative effects area. Statewide, surveys have documented the decline on approximately 17% of the aspen in the state of Colorado, as of 2008 (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/fhm/downloads/sad_faqs.pdf). These processes are expected to continue into the future.

Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Consenting to the BLM to lease FS lands for geothermal resources is an administrative action that, in and of itself, would not cause any effects to any wildlife species because lease issuance alone does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities to explore for or develop geothermal resources without additional site-specific analysis and approval for

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 36 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis the intended operation. However, lease issuance does grant the lessee a non-exclusive right to future exploration, and an exclusive right to produce and use the geothermal resources within the lease area, subject to existing laws, regulations, formal orders, and the terms, conditions and stipulations included in the lease. Stipulations include compliance with Forest Plan direction and Forest Service policy and regulations regarding sensitive species and MIS, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and conservation plans (i.e. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Plan). The Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) described in the Proposed Action projects the amount of surface use and activities that could potentially occur if a lease is issued, in terms of four sequential phases of development: exploration, drilling, operations, utilization and reclamation/abandonment.

The RFD assumes that there is an equal chance that all or part of geothermal activities could occur on FS, BLM, state, or private lands. If all activities occur on FS lands, this lease and the associated geothermal activities could potentially impact various vegetation types and associated habitat for all species in the lease area, depending on the locations of surface disturbing activities. The area of impact would therefore include 119 acres of various habitats that could be converted to an unsuitable condition. However, the likelihood of habitat being impacted or converted to an unsuitable condition for all species is minimal due to various No Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Use, and Timing Limitation stipulations for wildlife and other resources in the area that would limit development.

The RFD does not have specific locations for well pads, powerlines, roads, pipelines, or the powerplant facility which would comprise the surface disturbance, but it does indicate that the expected acreage of disturbance required for geothermal development would be approximately 119 total acres. Without knowing exactly where the facilities, roads, pipelines and utilities will be placed, it is reasonable to assume that vegetation types impacted could be any combination of existing vegetation and associated wildlife habitat within the lease area (Table 2). It may also be reasonable to assume that the amount of vegetation types impacted may be proportional to the amount of types present in the lease area. The resulting habitat loss would therefore equate to approximately 6 acres of spruce-fir, 21 acres of lodgepole pine, less than 1 acre of bristlecone pine, 21 acres of Douglas fir, 22 acres of aspen, 27.8 acres of sagebrush, 11.8 acres of grasslands, 7.8 acres of bare soil/rock, and less than 1 acre of other surface types.

Since lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, aspen, and sagebrush make up the majority of vegetation types in the lease area, most surface disturbance would likely occur within some combination of these types. However, stipulations will prohibit development in some areas, and limit how it occurs in other areas so that some of the above vegetation types may not be impacted at all or very minimally. For example, No Surface Occupancy stipulations applied to sagebrush plant communities within occupied Gunnison Sage- Grouse range were developed to prohibit development within 0.6 miles of leks. For those areas outside the 0.6-mile lek buffer where development may be considered, stipulations will ensure that we first strive to avoid impacting habitat, then minimizing impacts if avoidance is not possible, and mitigating unavoidable impacts consistent with the

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 37 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis direction in the Rangewide Conservation Plan and in consultation with CDOW and USFWS.

The roads, powerlines, pipelines, utilities, powerplant and well pads will result in a complete loss of habitat within the footprint of disturbance (4 pads of approximately 4 acres each, 10 miles of roads of approximately 3.6 acres/mi, surface pipelines totaling 6 miles of approximately 3 acres/mi, powerlines totaling 5 miles of approximately 6.1 acres/mi, and powerplant facility on approximately 10 acres) for the life of the project. These facilities and infrastructure are not expected to be built all at one time, but rather during several different phases of development. Most of the development would take place during the drilling and utilization phases. After drilling and utilization is complete, these areas will be re-contoured and re-vegetated with grasses and forbs for erosion control in the short term, and are expected to re-vegetate to types consistent with their pre-disturbance condition in the long term. This project will therefore not remove habitat permanently from the landscape, but will remove it in the short- and mid-term for the areas rehabilitated during the drilling and utilization phase, and in the long-term (for the life of the project which is projected to be 30 to 50 years plus the length of time to recover to pre-disturbance conditions) for all other areas.

Traffic from construction and maintenance of the pads could occur year-round, except in areas with timing limitation stipulations to protect wildlife during sensitive time periods within the area and on associated road systems. Current traffic levels in the Tomichi Dome area are very low (average daily traffic of less than 1 vehicle per day on USFS system roads). Outside the hunting seasons, the Tomichi Dome area receives low human use during much of the year. As such, traffic associated with geothermal activities is anticipated to be substantially different (greater) than existing levels on current roads, and there would be additional geothermal traffic on newly developed roads. Newly developed roads would be closed to public use and would have slightly lower levels of use compared to existing roads that would have traffic from geothermal activity and the public.

Wildlife would be affected by the alteration, removal, reduction, or fragmentation of habitat and may be displaced during project activities. Construction activities will impact an area beyond the footprint of surface disturbance at drilling pads, facilities, roadways, transmission corridors and pipelines. Depending on species and individual animal tolerances to disturbance, effects from construction noise and human presence could cause individuals to avoid what is otherwise suitable habitat. Animal movement and habitat use patterns may be affected due to habitat fragmentation and disturbance from geothermal activities. Disturbances during sensitive time periods including the breeding season and during winter may also negatively impact wildlife. Geothermal development would have the greatest impact on wildlife if it were to affect high quality habitats such as riparian areas, wetlands, or wintering and breeding areas.

Lease stipulations will result in avoidance of some areas, and will help to minimize and mitigate impacts from surface disturbance due to creation of roads, powerlines, pipelines, facilities, well pads, winter access, and vegetative changes. The stipulations and

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 38 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis associated WEMs are described above in the proposed action. Stipulations were developed to avoid or minimize impacts to riparian areas and wetlands, winter range (big game and sage-grouse), breeding areas (sage-grouse and raptors), and forest habitat for Canada lynx (please see the biological assessment, available in the project record at the Gunnison Ranger District office), and to protect wildlife during sensitive time periods (breeding/nesting seasons, winter).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the cumulative effects area that are impacting wildlife. Although it is unknown during the lease phase if and/or how much future surface disturbance might occur, for this analysis an assumption is made that all geothermal activities could potentially occur on FS land and would thus alter 119 acres of vegetation types for various wildlife species occurring in the lease area. As discussed above, stipulations would limit habitat effects by avoiding some areas and limiting development in other areas, thus all or portions of habitat types for some species would not be affected. Habitat impacts and human disturbance from geothermal activities would add to past, present, and other future activities in the area.

The FACTS (Forest Service Activity Tracking System) database was used to determine past federal actions in the area which may have impacted wildlife habitat. Within the past 40 years, a total of 16,055 acres of habitat alteration has occurred within the larger cumulative effects area, associated primarily with timber and prescribed fire vegetation management activities. The majority of these activities are in lodgepole pine habitats. These acres reflect some re-treatment of areas due to multiple entries for a single project, so less than 16,055 acres of the landscape have been actually treated. Appendix A shows the individual actions occurring within the area in that time frame. Within the 39,848- acre cumulative effects area, vegetation management activities have affected approximately 9.6% of grasslands/forblands, 18.3% of sagebrush, 24.7% of aspen, 4.5% of Douglas fir, 41.6% of lodgepole pine, 0.37% of spruce-fir, and less than 1% of other vegetation types (other shrublands and areas of mostly bare ground with scarce vegetation).

On private lands, ranching activities and grazing adjacent to the lease parcels may contribute to vegetation changes in the area. However, these private lands are already modified through long-term human use, and continued grazing is not likely to alter the suitability of wildlife habitat in this area from current conditions. The potential exists for additional development on private land in terms of single family home development. If development should occur in previously undeveloped areas, wildlife habitat and/or habitat quality may be reduced and individuals could be displaced and populations potentially impacted, which would increase the importance of habitat on adjacent federal public lands to meet wildlife needs. Water developments in this area (Hot Springs Reservoir, ditches) already exist, and future actions will continue use of existing facilities. Impacts of past and current grazing, recreation, outfitting, and other permitted activities (easements) are expected to remain similar to the existing condition and not be substantially altered by the proposed project. Other actions (road and trail maintenance, Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 39 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis easements/special use permits) are expected to continue, and these actions occur on existing disturbed sites. Recreation activities are not expected to be substantially altered by this project and impacts of recreation on wildlife are expected to be similar to the current conditions.

Sensitive Species

No Action The direct and indirect impacts of the “no action” alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of any Forest Service sensitive or management indicator species in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the project area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.

Proposed Action American marten Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short- and long-term effects of disturbance during construction and operation of facilities • long-term changes to habitat Marten tend to be shy but occasionally appear fearless of humans and may approach closely (Ruggiero et al. 1994). They are active at various times of the day and night and appear to be flexible in their activity patterns. Activities associated with this project may cause avoidance of affected areas, result in changes in activity patterns, or incidental mortality if den sites are impacted or from collisions from traffic on roads.

Studies of home range size of male martens shows a range 16 km2 (Minnesota) to 0.8 km2 in Montana (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Female home ranges are smaller than males and home range size also varies based on prey abundance. A mid-range home range size (8 km2) would equate to approximately 3 square miles. Because this species appears to be generally tolerant of some types of human activity (they are commonly observed in ski areas and at cabin sites), and since there is abundant habitat outside of the disturbed area that would likely overlap territories, disturbance associated with maintenance and operation of geothermal facilities outside of the denning period would likely be insignificant and discountable however, habitat loss and fragmentation would likely affect distribution and limit use in the Tomichi Dome area because martens typically avoid open, non-forested areas although research has shown martens crossing small openings (10 – 100 m wide; Spencer et al. 1983, Simon 1980, Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Ruggiero et al. 1994). In addition, preferred prey species (red squirrel) would also be affected from habitat loss resulting in indirect effects to marten. If construction activities were to occur in marten habitat during their denning period, disturbance impacts could potentially cause den abandonment and mortality of young.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 40 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis

Denning habitat includes natal dens and maternal dens. Young are born in March and April in natal dens, but may be moved to other dens by their mother. They leave dens at about 50 days (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Young born in late April would leave dens around mid-June. Suitable marten denning habitat is present in the project area and could potentially be impacted by the project due to a complete loss of habitat suitability at roads, pipelines, transmission lines, facilities and pad locations in spruce-fir and lodgepole pine habitats, with a total impacted area in these habitats estimated at approximately 27 acres. This estimate is based on the assumption that project activities will occur in vegetation types in proportion to the types present in the lease area. Depending on the locations of surface disturbing activities, less than or greater than 27 acres of marten habitat could be impacted. Lease stipulations associated with Canada lynx (please see the Biological Assessment available in the project record) would require replanting of spruce-fir as part of rehabilitation, so in the long term, this habitat will be regenerated but would not be expected to recover to a suitable condition until 20 to 30 years post reclamation at a minimum (50 to 80 years in the future). Marten do not commonly use early successional forests so habitat quality would be poor, at best. Marten commonly utilize mature and old growth spruce-fir forests. If these forest types are impacted, they would take much longer to recover to pre-disturbance conditions (150 + years). Much of the area on Tomichi Dome containing spruce-fir and lodgepole pine is snowbound until late May and most construction activities would occur outside of the denning period for this species due to a winter timing limitation (Dec. 1 to April 15) for lynx which overlaps all marten habitat in the lease area. This will reduce the risk of incidental direct mortality to denning individuals or immobile young.

Marten make little use of early successional types as they lack overhead cover, high volumes of coarse woody debris, small-scale complex vegetation patterns and result in a conversion of a moist cool site to a warm, dry site (and changes in prey densities) (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Martens will generally avoid forest openings, but studies have found them crossing openings of 10m (Spencer et al. 1983), to 40 m (Simon 1980) to 100 m (Koehler and Hornocker 1977) (in Ruggiero et al. 1994). They are routinely seen on other parts of the GMUG NF crossing roadways (Paonia Ranger District observation records, D. Garrison pers. obs.). Road openings created for this project will be approximately 10 meters wide, within the range of tolerance noted above however, roads, pipelines and transmission lines are all expected to negatively influence marten use of the landscape be reducing habitat quality and quantity and there would also be an increased risk of incidental mortality from collisions on roadways.

Starting in 1997, as a result of Amendment 14 that outlaws traps and snares, there has been no legal recreational trapping for any furbearer species in Colorado. In 2001, the CDOW looked at opening certain furbearer species to box and cage trapping. Several species may now be legally trapped, but this does not include marten. As such, effects of changes in access to trappers and resultant effects on vulnerability of marten to trapping will not be analyzed further.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 41 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding lease area. Vegetation management activities, primarily timber harvest, occur within suitable habitat for this species within the cumulative effects area but not within the lease area. These activities will continue in the area. Vegetation management has affected 6,464 acres of spruce-fir and lodgepole habitats potentially used by marten, which is approximately 47% of the total suitable habitat for this species in the cumulative effects area. No other activities, with the exception of recreational hunting and livestock grazing, occur within suitable habitat in the analysis area. Some of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable vegetation management actions may reduce the quantity or quality of denning or foraging habitats for this species in the cumulative effects area. Disturbance from these activities will remain similar to current and past levels. Currently, approximately 155 acres of habitat potentially suitable for marten have been converted to an unsuitable condition due to vegetation management. This is 1.1% of all marten habitat in the cumulative effects area. No marten habitat in the lease area has been converted to an unsuitable condition. If consent to lease the area to Geothermal development is given, project activities could possibly render an estimated additional 27 acres of marten habitat to an unsuitable condition, which is 22.5% of marten habitat in the lease area. This would increase the percent unsuitable within the cumulative effects area to 1.3%. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on known presence of marten within the project area, the anticipated loss of suitable habitat if geothermal activities occur in marten habitat, and the possibility of mortality or disturbance to denning or foraging martens. The negative effects from this project are of small magnitude and are not expected to result in a Forest- wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan.

Pygmy shrew Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential to affect this species or habitat include: • short-term potential for loss of individuals during construction • long-term changes to habitat Spruce-fir habitat suitable for the montane subspecies of pygmy shrew may be present within the project area, and could potentially be converted to road, pipeline, transmission line, facilities and pad locations for the long-term (life of the project, which is projected to be 30 – 50 years plus the length of time for habitat to recover to pre-disturbance conditions). This habitat is expected to regenerate after the abandonment and reclamation phase but could take many years to recover to pre-disturbance conditions (150+ years). This species is often associated with moist spruce-fir sites. Stipulations developed to protect springs, seeps, wetlands and riparian areas should serve to protect habitat for this species.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 42 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Heavy equipment could easily kill or injure individual shrews during construction, and small mammals such as shrews are susceptible to road kill. Soil compaction from construction equipment and from development may also affect pygmy shrew habitat. Because only a very small proportion of the shrew’s habitat may be affected by this project (estimated 6 acres), and the species’ high reproductive rates, direct and indirect effects are anticipated to be low and insignificant. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats suitable for this species, and portions of the remaining area are also suitable for foraging. Of these 515 acres, 58 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 11.3% of pygmy shrew habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 6 acres of spruce-fir habitat, which is 3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 1.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted pygmy shrew habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 11.3% to 12.4%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions substantially reduce the quantity or quality of denning or foraging habitats for this species in this area at the landscape scale, and few of them have occurred in suitable habitats. Disturbance from these activities will remain similar to current and past levels. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is because this species is at risk for direct mortality during construction, and habitat could potentially be affected over the short and long-term. However, there is abundant habitat in the lease and cumulative affects areas and the species’ has a high reproductive ability to replace lost individuals.

Gunnison’s prairie dog Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • long-term changes to habitat due to potential habitat loss • incidental mortality from collisions with traffic on roads The No Surface Occupancy Stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse may prevent geothermal activities from occurring in potential Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat. However, if WEMs are approved in sagebrush and grassland habitats within 0.6 to 4.0 miles of sage-grouse lek sites, then prairie dog habitat may be negatively impacted due to reductions in habitat quality and quantity. Incidental mortality could result from increased roads (10 miles of new roads projected) and increased traffic associated with geothermal activities. Prior to surface disturbing activities, surveys for prairie dogs would be conducted and avoidance of colonies required as a controlled surface use stipulation.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 43 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to this species in the cumulative effects area are primarily associated with past, current and reasonably foreseeable habitat effects of livestock grazing, fire, recreational shooting and plaque outbreaks. Land management activities are not anticipated to have a significant effect on habitat conditions. If geothermal development occurs in prairie dog habitat, this would increase cumulative effects to this species but stipulations for sage-grouse are expected to avoid or minimize impacts to habitat. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on known presence of suitable habitat within the project area, the anticipated loss of suitable habitat by the project if WEMs are granted, and the possibility of disturbance or incidental mortality.

Bald Eagle Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • potential for nest abandonment and loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat Overlapping timing restrictions for sage-grouse and big game would prevent disturbance from December 1 to June 30, which overlaps most of the winter period when bald eagles are present. Bald eagles may arrive on their wintering grounds in the Upper Gunnison Basin as early as October. Construction activities in October and November could cause bald eagles to avoid winter concentration and foraging habitat in the lease area. As such, a separate timing limitation for bald eagle would prevent geothermal development from occurring beginning October 15 through the end of winter within the winter concentration area. In areas where bald eagle winter concentration and occupied Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat overlap, the No Surface Occupancy and Timing Limitation stipulations for sage- grouse will also protect bald eagle.

Bald eagles have not been documented nesting in the project or cumulative effects areas and are not known to nest in Gunnison County. Bald eagles are unlikely to nest within the lease area due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat. Bald eagles would be more likely to select nest sites in the Gunnison or East River corridors which contain large, mature cottonwood trees and more abundant food sources. Nest surveys would be required during the breeding season prior to geothermal development. If any nests are discovered prior to, during, or after development, the bald eagle nest buffer and timing limitation stipulation (0.5-mile buffer from October 15 to August 1, protects wintering and nesting eagles) would apply.

If geothermal development occurs in the winter concentration area, near major water sources (Hot Springs Creek and Hot Springs Reservoir), or winter foraging habitat (coincides with big game winter range) there is the potential for long-term habitat loss of

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 44 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Douglas fir and ponderosa pine trees that could be used as perch sites or roosting habitat. No Surface Occupancy and Controlled Surface Use stipulations for water sources (seeps, springs, streams, wetlands, riparian areas and flood plains) should also serve to protect bald eagle winter habitat. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to this species in the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area are primarily associated with past, current and reasonably foreseeable prescribed fire management which has the potential to affect big game winter range that might be used by bald eagles for foraging. Past and ongoing management activities likely have insignificant effects on bald eagle winter habitat and bald eagle use of the winter concentration area. Stipulations are expected to avoid or minimize impacts to habitat and to wintering or nesting birds. Bald eagles within the cumulative effects area may continue to be affected from past, ongoing and future activities, but actions taken for this project are unlikely to add, interact with, or substantially change other activities that would result in increased cumulative effects to this species as a result of this project. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on potential use of birds in the mapped winter concentration area overlapping the north lease parcel, mapped winter foraging range overlapping the majority of the lease area, the anticipated loss of suitable roosting habitat and perch sites if geothermal activities are proposed in the winter concentration area or in winter foraging habitat, and the slight possibility of disturbance to nesting birds potentially causing delayed food deliveries to chicks or nest abandonment. Stipulations for Gunnison Sage-Grouse, big game and bald eagle should help avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to this species.

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short- and long-term effects of human disturbance during geothermal activities. • Noise effects from geothermal operations. • Potential for increased mortality due to collisions with powerlines and from traffic on roads. • Long-term changes to habitat, including potential fragmentation effects from roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and well pads; and effects to nesting, brood- rearing, summer/fall habitat and winter habitat quality and connectivity. • Potential population effects. Effects from geothermal activities will extend beyond the footprint of ground disturbance. Human activity and noise from construction and geothermal operations may disturb and displace birds causing them to avoid using suitable habitat adjacent to disturbed areas. Transmission lines can cause sage-grouse mortality due to collisions with lines (Beck et al. 2006, Aldridge and Boyce 2007) and could also facilitate raptor

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 45 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis predation by increasing perch sites for raptors (Connelly et al. 2000). Raptor deterrents can be installed on transmission line poles to reduce the likelihood of them being used as perch sites. Transmission lines, pipelines and roads, if placed in sage-grouse habitat, would convert suitable habitat to an unsuitable condition and would contribute to habitat fragmentation. Sage-grouse may also avoid using suitable habitat adjacent to these features, especially roads. Traffic from roads could potentially cause sage-grouse mortality from collisions, but due to anticipated sage-grouse avoidance of moderate and heavily used roads, collisions with truck traffic associated with geothermal activities may be negligible.

The lease area contains 979 acres of sagebrush plant communities. Implementation of the project may impact sagebrush habitats potentially suitable for sage-grouse. However, the proposed action includes lease stipulations that would forbid surface use within 0.6 miles of leks with no Waivers, Exceptions, or Modifications (WEMs) allowed. Approximately 53 acres in the far southwest corner of the Tomichi Dome parcel occur within the No Surface Occupancy 0.6-mile buffer (Figure 9). A second lease stipulation forbids surface occupancy between 0.6 to 4.0 miles of leks but allows WEMS in controlled situations. Of the suitable sage-grouse habitat present in the lease area, 926 acres is within the 0.6 - 4.0 mile buffer of leks. Within this second buffer, WEMs will only be allowed if they are consistent with the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan and in consultation with the CDOW and USFWS. A separate No Surface Occupancy stipulation for riparian features will further protect brood-rearing habitat. If a WEM is approved, then the following additional restrictions would apply based on direction from the Rangewide Conservation Plan: 1. Sites selected for development activities should avoid fragmenting or degrading sage-grouse habitat. Locate facilities in vegetation types other than sagebrush and riparian areas to avoid impacts to sage-grouse habitat. If powerlines cannot be avoided in sage-grouse habitat, retrofit utilities to minimize raptor perches.

2. No development activities in mapped Gunnison Sage-Grouse habitat between March 15 and June 30 within 4.0 miles of known leks. Routine operation, maintenance and site visitations of production facilities will be restricted to occur between 09:00 and 16:00 during the above time period (no human activities would be allowed outside this time period). No development activities within mapped Gunnison Sage-Grouse winter habitat between December 1 and March 15.

3. A 1,000-ft buffer would be applied to the outer edge of riparian areas. WEMs may be considered for necessary stream crossings or if topographic features are present within this buffer that act as a barrier protecting the riparian area from disturbance; however post-lease development in riparian areas would be minimized thereby reducing impacts on brood-rearing habitat.

4. Limit operational noise to a maximum of 49 dBA measured 30 feet from the source year-round. This will help protect priority habitats such as lek sites,

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 46 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat to prevent abandonment of display grounds, and to maintain reproductive success, recruitment, and survival. These stipulations should result in limited or no loss of sage-grouse habitat and should minimize disturbances during the breeding, nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter periods. The timing limitation will prevent development from occurring during the specified time period. Construction and drilling activities could occur between July 1 and November 30. The daytime timing limitation (activities restricted to 09:00-16:00) would prevent disturbances to sage-grouse prior to 09:00 and after 16:00, but disturbance from routine operation, maintenance and site visitations of production facilities would occur from 09:00 to 16:00. Since WEMs may be considered within the 0.6 to 4.0 mile buffer of leks, habitat impacts would be limited to this area. The No Surface Occupancy stipulation identified for the 0.6 to 4.0 buffer could still allow for geothermal development due to WEMs, but requires that all efforts are made to avoid sage-grouse habitat. If avoidance is not possible, the above stipulations and the Rangewide Conservation Plan will be used in consultation with CDOW and USFWS to minimize and mitigate impacts. If WEMs are allowed in sage-grouse habitat, site specific impacts will be analyzed prior to permitting of the exploration, drilling, utilization, and reclamation/abandonment stages with mitigation developed in consultation with the CDOW and USFWS to minimize impacts.

Sagebrush area is one of the best landscape predictors of sage-grouse persistence (Wisdom et al. 2002a, b; Walker et al. 2007, Doherty et al. 2008, Aldridge et al. 2008, Wisdom et al. In press). Reductions in sagebrush combined with disturbance from geothermal activities could potentially reduce long-term persistence of birds in the Tomichi Dome area. Analysis conducted by Wisdom et al. (In press) indicates that larger landscapes occupied by sage-grouse with sagebrush area less than 27% may be at a higher risk of extirpation, whereas landscapes with sagebrush greater than 50% may have a higher probability of persistence (these estimates are based on a landscape analysis of 18-km radius circles) . This is consistent with recent landscape studies conducted by Aldridge et al. (2008) and Walker et al. (2007). Walker (2007) estimated that the lowest probability of Greater sage-grouse lek persistence occurred for landscapes with less than 30% area in sagebrush within 6.4 km of a lek center. Walker found that the probability of persistence declined even more for landscapes with less than 30% sagebrush that were subjected to energy development. As discussed above, reductions in sagebrush are anticipated to be minimal to none due to the No Surface Occupancy and Controlled Surface Use stipulations. As such, geothermal development in the FS Tomichi Dome lease area is not anticipated to reduce sagebrush area that would further contribute to a lower probability of persistence. However, Wisdom et al. (In press) did not identify any strongholds (i.e., areas of occupied range with a low risk of extirpation) for Gunnison Sage-Grouse. Thus, remaining habitats are becoming increasingly important to the sustainability of sage-grouse and avoiding negative impacts to sagebrush habitat should be strived for to help maintain population viability.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 47 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Figure 9. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Cumulative Effects Area and Habitat Status

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is an 86,925-acre area surrounding the FS lease parcels. This area includes the 4-mile buffer of leks on adjacent BLM land that overlap the FS lease parcels, combined with the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area shown above in Figure 9. Forest Service lands within the cumulative effects area comprise 7,419 acres of area mapped as occupied Gunnison Sage-Grouse range, of which 2,976 acres actually consists of sagebrush plant communities. The remaining 4,443 acres consist of forested vegetation types or high elevation areas not used by sage-grouse. All suitable sage-grouse habitat within the 4-mile lek buffer on adjacent BLM land is considered occupied. As discussed under direct and indirect effects, stipulations are expected to prevent or result in limited habitat loss. A No Surface Occupancy stipulation would prohibit all geothermal activities from occurring within 0.6 miles of leks, which would protect 53 acres of sage-grouse habitat in the Forest Service lease area. A No Surface Occupancy stipulation would also protect 926 acres of sage-grouse habitat within 0.6 to 4.0 miles of leks, with WEMs potentially being considered for this area. Stipulations should prevent any loss or impacts to sage-grouse habitat or result in minimal habitat loss. As such, if no geothermal activities occur in sage-grouse habitat then there would be no cumulative increase in impacts to sage-grouse habitat. In the long-term, if some habitat is converted to an unsuitable condition, sagebrush would be anticipated to regenerate in the affected area due to reclamation efforts, including seeding. The projected life of the geothermal resource is 30 – 50 years. After the reclamation and abandonment stage, it could take 30 years or likely longer for big

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 48 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis sagebrush (mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush) to become reestablished, which would be 60 – 80 years in the future at a minimum.

The 39,848-acre cumulative effects area currently contains approximately 10,261 acres of sagebrush (Table 3). Of these acres, 2,976 acres occur within mapped occupied sage- grouse range. From 1979 to 2006, vegetation management activities on FS lands in the cumulative effects area treated approximately 36% (1,065 acres) of sagebrush habitat within mapped occupied sage-grouse range. Vegetation management, primarily prescribed fire, will continue to influence sagebrush habitat conditions in the cumulative effects area similar to current conditions. Prescribed fire is currently being initiated in sagebrush-ponderosa pine/Douglas fir interfaces. Recent burns have occurred in the north lease parcel and approximately 30 acres are planned for 2010. These burns are occurring outside the 4-mile buffer of leks and within forest/sagebrush interfaces. Within the reasonably foreseeable future, the Yellow Pine Fuels Reduction Project will overlap the geothermal area lease parcel (northern parcel overlap is approximately 150 acres) and cumulative effects area (approximately 3,465 acres) causing further changes to habitat. These burns, while located within or partially overlapping mapped occupied sage-grouse range, will not occur in sagebrush dominated habitat. A brush mowing treatment is tentatively planned for the fall of 2011 in the Greathouse Gulch area west of Hot Springs Reservoir beneath the transmission line to reduce the risk of wildfire along the transmission line corridor, totaling approximately 15 acres. If future prescribed fire or mechanical treatment is proposed in sagebrush vegetation in occupied sage-grouse range, direction and guidance from the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan and recent peer-reviewed science will be used to guide management. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. No Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Use and timing restriction stipulations should result in limited or no loss of sage-grouse habitat and should prevent disturbance to birds during sensitive time periods, but if WEMs are allowed within occupied habitat in the 0.6 to 4.0 mile buffer of leks, then there is the potential for reductions in habitat quality and quantity and disturbance/displacement of individuals during construction and human activity. Timing limitations for sage-grouse and big game would prevent disturbance to birds from geothermal activities from December 1 to June 30. Due to the stipulations developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, the negative effects from this project should not deter from meeting the objectives and guidelines in the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan.

Brewer’s Sparrow Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Potential for nest abandonment and loss of young during construction

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 49 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis • long-term changes to habitat, including habitat loss and potential fragmentation effects Brewer’s sparrow population viability is likely linked to extensive alteration of sagebrush shrub steppe habitat (Holmes and Johnson 2005). On the Forest, threats to Brewer’s sparrows may be associated with management activities such as prescribed fire or mechanical treatment when design criteria are not implemented to ensure the maintenance of Brewer’s sparrow habitat. Specifically, management activities that result in sagebrush reduction or the loss of other woody shrubs used by Brewer’s sparrows may degrade breeding habitat. The No Surface Occupancy Stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse may prevent geothermal activities from occurring in potential Brewer’s sparrow habitat. However, if WEMs are approved in sagebrush habitats within 0.6 to 4.0 miles of lek sites, then Brewer’s sparrow habitat may be negatively impacted due to reductions in habitat quality and quantity and from potential fragmentation effects due to access roads, pipelines and transmission lines. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to this species in the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area are primarily associated with past, current and reasonably foreseeable livestock grazing and fire. Continued use of suitable habitat by Brewer’s sparrows will likely be dependent on riparian and range conditions related to livestock grazing. If geothermal development occurs in Brewer’s sparrow habitat, this would increase cumulative effects to this species but stipulations for sage-grouse and big game are expected to avoid or minimize impacts to habitat and to birds during the majority of their nesting season (Mid April – early August). Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on known presence of Brewer’s sparrow habitat within the project area, the anticipated loss of suitable habitat by the project if WEMs are granted, and the possibility of disturbance to nesting birds potentially causing delayed food deliveries to chicks or nest abandonment. The negative effects from this project are of small magnitude and are not expected to result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Forest Plan direction as it relates to Brewer’s sparrow since stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse would also avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to this species.

Northern goshawk Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Potential for nest abandonment and loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 50 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Human disturbances to goshawk nests have been a suspected cause of nest abandonment (Reynolds et al. 1992). Alternate nests are used commonly, but Crocker-Bedford found yearly nest tree fidelity remained at 67% in uncut forests, while treated units dropped to 15-20%, even with no-cut buffers around the nests (USDA 2005a).

Braun et al. (1996) reviewed existing goshawk management guidelines. They found no studies of human disturbance on breeding goshawks, but felt that the recommendation to minimize human activities in the nest area during the breeding season was a reasonable, conservative approach.

Goshawks are known to occur in the cumulative effects area with one known territory overlapping the north parcel. Visual searches for nests were conducted in October 2009 in suitable habitat within the lease area. No goshawk nests were found and none have been documented within the lease area, but surveys have not been conducted during the breeding season. Human disturbance and construction activities near nest sites could cause nest abandonment and incidental mortality of young. Goshawks have high nest site fidelity and reductions in habitat within a nest stand could cause goshawks to avoid using their nest site in subsequent years.

Additional raptor surveys specific to goshawk will be planned for this project prior to implementation of surface disturbing activities. Lease stipulations, including timing restrictions and nest buffers, provide protection to known nest sites (0.5-mile buffer from March 1 to September 15), should any be located. This stipulation would help reduce the potential for loss of young during nesting as a result of nest abandonment due to disturbance.

Implementation of the project is projected to result in the loss of 22 acres of mature aspen habitats potentially suitable for goshawk foraging and nesting. This is 0.01% of the total mature aspen habitat for the GMUG. An additional loss of 6 acres of spruce-fir and 21 acres of lodgepole pine habitat is also anticipated, for a total combined loss of 49 acres which is 0.22% of goshawk habitat in the cumulative effects area and 3% of goshawk habitat in the project area. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. The projected habitat losses are insignificant changes at this scale. If the aspen does regenerate in these areas, long-term suitability of the treated stands would return as the stands matured.

The GMUG did an analysis of habitat trends on the Forest; aspen have stayed the same in the 1983 to 2000 period (no loss or gain of aspen forests; USDA Forest Service 2005c). Recently Sudden Aspen Decline has impacted aspen on the GMUG NF. Aspen in some portions of the lease area, primarily in the south side of the lease area south of Tomichi Dome and extending onto BLM lands, has declined in the project area. This trend may continue in the future in the lease area and cumulative effects area. The cumulative effects area currently contains approximately 8,469 acres of aspen, 7 acres of ponderosa pine, 515 acres of spruce-fir, and 13,131 acres of lodgepole (Table 3), all of which have

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 51 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis been documented being used by goshawks for nesting and foraging. Vegetation management activities, including timber and prescribed fire, will continue to influence goshawk habitat quality in the cumulative effects area similar to current conditions. To date, approximately 46.4% of goshawk habitat in the cumulative effects area has been affected by vegetation management however, the majority of this affected habitat has not been converted to an unsuitable condition for goshawk. Much of this affected habitat has remained suitable for nesting or foraging because Forest Plan direction provides nest buffers to protect nest sites, and goshawks utilize a variety of vegetation structural conditions and successional stages for foraging. If geothermal development reduces goshawk habitat in the lease area as projected above, then the percent of goshawk habitat impacted in the cumulative effects area would increase from 46.4% to 46.7%. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on the loss of 49 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat (which is 3.1% of goshawk habitat in the project area, and 0.22% of goshawk habitat in the cumulative effects area), mitigated by lease stipulations for timing restrictions and nest buffers if goshawks are located in the project area. The negative effects from this project are of short duration and magnitude and do not result in a Forest- wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan.

Boreal owl Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • short-term potential for loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat This species is associated with spruce/fir habitats, similar to martens. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease area, approximately 6 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of boreal owl habitat in the lease area) may be lost as a result of this project and would not recover until replanted conifers and natural regeneration mature. The low amount of habitat loss represents only a few individual territories (Hayward et al. 1992, Mikkola 1983). However, depending on the locations of surface disturbing activities, less than or greater than 6 acres of boreal owl habitat would be impacted. There is a risk that occupied nesting habitat may also be impacted, with resultant loss of young. However, the species may utilize other habitats for foraging, and they may use the newly created openings of the pads, utilities and roads for this purpose. Creation of these openings could therefore benefit this species in terms of providing additional foraging opportunities, but would not offset impacts of nesting habitat loss. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 52 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis suitable for this species, and portions of the remaining area are also suitable for foraging. Of these 515 acres, 58 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 11.3% of boreal owl habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 6 acres of spruce-fir habitat, which is 3.2% of boreal owl habitat in the lease area and 1.2% of boreal owl habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted boreal owl habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 11.3% to 12.4%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the proposed action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the possible loss of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 1.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), potential of loss of young during project activities, and potential increased foraging opportunities in the created forest openings.

Olive-sided flycatcher Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • short-term potential for loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat The nest-building through fledging period runs from about June 5 through August 2 for this species (Kingery 1998). Project activities during this time may result in abandonment of nests or alteration of territorial boundaries in the project area. Individual nests with eggs or young could be lost during project activities if olive-sided flycatchers occur in impacted areas. This would most likely be either from nest abandonment due to disturbance, or through direct mortality.

This species is associated with spruce/fir habitats, similar to martens and boreal owls. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease area, approximately 6 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease area) may be lost as a result of this project and would not recover until replanted conifers and natural regeneration mature. The low amount of habitat loss represents only a few individual territories. There is a risk that occupied nesting habitat may also be impacted, with resultant loss of young. However, the species may utilize other habitats for foraging, and may use the newly created openings of the pads, utilities and roads for this purpose. Creation of these openings would therefore benefit this species in terms of providing additional foraging opportunities but would not offset impacts from geothermal activities that cause nest abandonment and loss of young.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 53 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed treatments and activities. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats suitable for this species, and the remaining area is also suitable for foraging. Of these 515 acres, 58 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 11.3% of primary olive-sided flycatcher habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 6 acres of spruce- fir habitat, which is 3.2% of primary habitat in the lease area and 1.2% of primary habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted olive-sided flycatcher habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 11.3% to 12.4%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the proposed action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the possible loss of approximately 6 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 1.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), potential for loss of young during project activities, and potential increased foraging opportunities in the created forest openings.

Flammulated owl Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • short-term potential for loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat These owls are very tolerant of humans, nesting close to occupied areas and tolerating surveys and observation by flashlight at night. The effects of mechanical disturbance have not been assessed, but moderate disturbance may not have an adverse impact on the species (Hayward and Verner 1994).

The territory occupancy begins in late April or early May, with fledging in mid to late July (Hayward and Verner 1994). Project activities, including removal of suitable habitat, are likely to occur during the nesting period, and may result in loss of nests and young. Implementation of the proposed action, assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease area, would result in the loss of 43 acres of potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species (aspen and Douglas fir; 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease area). Regeneration discussion and assumptions are the same as for goshawk noted above. Avoidance of known nest sites would reduce risks to this species in this area.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 54 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. This area contains approximately 11,020 acres of aspen and Douglas fir habitats suitable for this species. Of these 11,020 acres, 4,510 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 40.9% of flammulated owl habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 43 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 0.4% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted flammulated owl habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 40.9% to 41.3%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the proposed action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the loss of 43 acres of aspen and Douglas fire habitat (3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 0.4% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), and the potential for disturbance near unknown nest sites or loss of habitat that might cause a loss of nest sites and young during project activities.

American three-toed woodpecker Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • short-term potential for loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat This species is associated with spruce/fir habitats, similar to martens, boreal owl and olive-sided flycatcher. This species also utilizes lodgepole pine forests. Snags for cavity nest excavation and beetle-infested trees are also important habitat components. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease area, approximately 27 acres of suitable habitat may be lost as a result of this project (3.2% of suitable three-toed woodpecker habitat within the lease area), and would not recover until replanted conifers and natural regeneration mature. The low amount of habitat loss represents only a few individual territories. There is a risk that occupied nesting habitat may also be impacted, with resultant loss of young. However, the species may utilize other habitats in the area for foraging, and snags are expected to remain on the landscape in sufficient abundance and distribution providing nest sites. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats and 13,131 acres of lodgepole pine habitats suitable for this species. Of these 13,646 acres, 6,464 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 47.4% of three-toed woodpecker habitat in the cumulative effects area.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 55 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Geothermal activities are projected to impact 27 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted three-toed woodpecker habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 47.4% to 47.6%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the proposed action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the possible loss of approximately 27 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), and potential of loss of young during project activities.

Purple martin Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • short-term potential for loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat The nest-building through fledging period runs from about June 6 through July 31 for this species (Kingery 1998). This species uses aspen habitats, similar to goshawk and flammulated owls. Project activities, including removal of suitable habitat, are likely to occur during the nesting period, and may result in loss of nests and young. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease area, implementation of the proposed action would result in the loss of 22 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species (mature aspen; 3.1% of aspen habitat in the lease area). Regeneration discussion and assumptions are the same as for goshawk noted above. Avoidance of known sites, if possible, would reduce risks to this species in this area. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. This area contains approximately 8,469 acres of aspen habitats suitable for this species. Of these 8,469 acres, 3,812 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 45% of purple martin habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 22 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted purple martin habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 45.0% to 45.3%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable anthropogenic activities within this area, when combined with the proposed action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. However, Sudden Aspen Decline may contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 56 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on the loss of 22 acres of suitable nesting habitat in the project area (3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), the potential for disturbance and loss of young, and the quantity of aspen habitat remaining in the cumulative effects area.

Northern leopard frog Direct and Indirect Effects The following potential effects to northern leopard frogs include: • short-term direct effects from construction (loss of individual adults, egg masses or juveniles) • impacts to water quality during and after construction The northern leopard frog has not been documented by Forest Service wildlife personnel in the watershed encompassing the lease area but potential habitat is present. During spring and early summer, egg masses and juveniles possibly residing in area streams or ponds may be subject to mortality through impacts to wetlands such as siltation or fuel spills. However, standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented in these types of projects make this unlikely. Incidental mortality may result from heavy equipment during construction, or from traffic along roads leading to and from the project area. There is also a possibility that movement of tadpoles or adult frogs may be curtailed by placement of culverts at stream crossings. Breeding habitat for this species will not be lost as a result of this project due to No Surface Occupancy stipulations protecting water resources. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. Past, ongoing and future activities in this area which may impact leopard frogs include grazing management, geothermal development, motorized travel, and water depletions. Grazing can result in loss of riparian vegetation (foraging habitat and cover) and trampling of egg masses. However, frog populations have been located on the forest in areas with livestock concentrations (Paonia Ranger District, D. Garrison pers. obs.) and many of the suitable habitat features on the landscape were created for and are managed for livestock use.

Water depletion due to ongoing ditch easements can reduce habitat availability at breeding sites (ponds and riparian areas). However, seasonal drying of wetlands and breeding ponds is a common occurrence for this species. Additionally, portions of the cumulative effects area receive substantial amounts of precipitation and have abundant surface water at higher elevations. Surface activities associated with future geothermal development can result in runoff effects as noted above, but these would be unlikely to have any noticeable impacts to this species in this area due to implementation of BMPs. Motorized travel of all types may result in mortality to individuals moving from wetlands into upland areas. These impacts, however, all occur in this watershed and have for

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 57 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis several years, and are not expected to change substantially as a result of the proposed action. This project is therefore unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts for this species. Determination Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on the possibility of individual mortality by vehicles or heavy equipment during construction, a low likelihood of water quality impacts, the presence of potentially suitable habitat near the project area, and the lack of aquatic habitat loss associated with the project.

Management Indicator Species

No Action The direct and indirect impacts of the “no action” alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of any Management Indicator Species in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the project area.

Proposed Action Rainbow Trout Direct and Indirect Effects The stipulations which protect water bodies will adequately protect the habitat of this species. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to rainbow trout are expected from this project. Cumulative Effects There will be no cumulative effects to rainbow trout resulting from this project since the distribution of rainbow trout is limited in the lease nomination area and because the stocked trout in Hot Springs are not a self-sustaining population. Rainbow trout outside the lease parcels within the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area may continue to be affected from past, ongoing and future activities, but actions taken for this project are unlikely to add, interact with, or substantially change other activities that would result in increased cumulative effects to this species as a result of this project. Summary and Conclusion No direct, indirect and cumulative effects are anticipated. Thus, the project will not cause a Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 58 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Rocky Mountain Elk and Mule Deer Mule deer are not designated as a management indicator species on the GMUG NF, but they are included in this analysis because they would be affected similarly as elk by the proposed action, critical winter range overlaps the lease area, and public comments during the scoping period indicated a concern for both mule deer and elk. Direct and Indirect Effects The following potential effects to elk and deer include: • short-term direct effects during construction (visual or auditory disturbance or displacement of individuals from machinery, vehicles and humans) • long-term direct effects as a result of changes in forage and cover, particularly winter range, and potential habitat fragmentation effects from roads, pipelines and transmission lines • long-term indirect effects as a result of changes in human use in the area (human use associated with geothermal activities, including management and maintenance of facilities) Declines in elk use of habitat adjacent to forest roads have been documented in many studies (Lyon 1979; Rowland et al. 2000). A study of elk in relation to logging disturbances found that there was a buffer zone of 500 to 1,000 meters (1640-3280 feet) separating areas of high elk use from areas of disturbance (Edge and Marcum 1985). Another study looked at reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season (Phillips and Alldredge 2000). They found that elk subjected to human-induced disturbance through a 3-4 week period during calving season over two years showed lower calf survival. Generally, habitats provide more effective security the further they are from roads. Considering documented road avoidance by elk, the minimum distance between secure habitats and an open road is 0.5 mile (Hillis et al. 1991).

The lease area does not occur within mapped elk production areas. However, elk may calve at any location on and off the Forest. Therefore, if activities occur during calving season, elk may be displaced by project activities. Numerous studies have shown that elk will move back into an area once the disturbance is over and the displacement will be temporary. The lease area may also be used by deer for fawning, and deer are expected to be impacted similarly as elk. The entire project area, and most of the surrounding landscape in the cumulative effects area, is considered summer range for elk and deer.

Currently, little summer recreational use is known to occur in the lease area. Motorized use is limited to existing roads, which occur in low density in the lease area (average daily traffic of less than 1 vehicle per day). Since these roads currently receive very little traffic outside the hunting seasons, geothermal development is expected to significantly increase vehicular traffic during exploration, drilling and construction of facilities. Access roads would be closed to the public after construction is complete, and no increase in motorized use of the area after construction, other than minimal entries for monitoring, are anticipated. The project area contains several open motorized routes at

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 59 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis this time, primarily in the south and west sides of the Tomichi Dome parcel in sagebrush and sagebrush/forest transition areas.

Geothermal activities could influence big game movement patterns and distribution in the lease area during the fall. Disturbance to both local elk and deer populations, and to hunters whose camps are no longer accessible or desirable due to project activities and/or traffic, is anticipated. If geothermal activities occur during the hunting seasons, especially in forested areas, some animals may be displaced to adjacent private lands. As a result, changes to elk and deer hunting pressure in both the immediate project vicinity and other portions of GMU 551 could occur but is not expected to have a significant influence on big game in the GMU. Harvest success may be impacted within the lease area, but due to the scale of the anticipated disturbance compared to the size of GMU 551, it is not anticipated that geothermal activities will cause harvest rates to change significantly across the GMU.

The south 1/3 to 1/2 of the project area is considered to be elk and deer winter range and an elk winter concentration area (1,453 acres). The concentration area receives substantial use by elk in the spring and winter as documented in the Existing Condition section above. The far southwest corner of the Tomichi Dome lease parcel also occurs within severe winter range for deer (188 acres). Connected actions such as motorized travel on roads outside the lease area may occur in winter range. While the big game and sage-grouse timing restrictions would prevent disturbances to big game from December 1 to June 30, geothermal development that would occur between July 1 and November 30 could negatively affect habitat quality and quantity and could potentially reduce the carrying capacity of this winter concentration area. Roads and pipelines would fragment habitat and would likely affect big game movement patterns. Pipelines may act as barriers to movement if placed too high for animals to jump over or too low preventing animals from moving beneath them.

Because elk and deer use a wide variety of habitats, the conversion of existing vegetation to a grass/forb, then young seral stages once disturbed areas are reclaimed, is unlikely to have any measurable effects to elk at the population scale. Forage availability in this area is likely to increase once reclamation occurs, and elk and deer may use roads for travel prior to and concurrent with recovery, especially as roads will not be open to public motorized travel. Summer range is not a limiting factor for deer and elk in the Upper Gunnison Basin area, and thus alteration of summer habitat is unlikely to cause noticeable population changes. Vulnerability to hunters could increase in the new road prisms and pads for several years, but abundant cover is currently found throughout the project area and is likely to be immediately available to elk and deer during hunting seasons.

Much of the deer and elk winter range is mapped as occupied Gunnison Sage-Grouse habitat, which will contain a No Surface Occupancy stipulation. This stipulation should also function to protect deer and elk winter habitat. In addition, the Timing Limitation stipulation for big game should prevent disturbance to deer and elk on winter range.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 60 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed lease area. Habitat alteration from the proposed project is anticipated to cause insignificant changes at this scale. Because deer and elk use a wide variety of habitats, the conversion of this small area of mature forested habitats to a young forest types or mountain shrub cover type are not expected to have any substantial effects. If leasing leads to future geothermal development, project activities would add cumulatively to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, but is not likely to substantially interact with or substantially change other recreational, grazing, or special use actions as described in the Cumulative Effects section above. In addition, deer and elk populations are much more likely to be directly influenced through management of hunting seasons and post-hunt population objectives by the CDOW than from habitat changes at minor scales.

Travel management in the cumulative effects area was analyzed in the Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management FEIS and may result in long-term changes in open road or trail use within the cumulative effects area, based on the Record of Decision. It is anticipated that overall mileage of open road and motorized trails within the analysis area and on adjacent BLM lands will decrease slightly once travel management is implemented. Motorized routes created for this project will not be open to the public and will be reclaimed within a short time frame once they are no longer needed. Summary and Conclusion Timing restrictions for big game should avoid or minimize impacts to animals on winter range. The negative effects from this project may lead to increased habitat loss and fragmentation due to access roads, pipelines and transmission lines. The negative effects are not anticipated to result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan. Best management practices as conditions of approval at the next stages of permitting will help minimize impacts.

Red-naped Sapsucker Direct and Indirect Effects Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • short-term potential for loss of young during construction • long-term changes to habitat The nest-building through fledging period runs from about May 20 through August 25 for this species (Kingery 1998). Project activities during this time may result in delayed food deliveries to chicks which could affect chick survival, or abandonment of nests or alteration of territorial boundaries in the project area. Individual nests with eggs or young could be lost during project activities if sapsuckers occur in impacted areas. This would most likely be either from nest abandonment due to disturbance, or through direct mortality.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 61 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis If project activities occur in vegetation types in proportion to the types present in the lease area, then habitat changes could potentially alter an estimated 22 acres of mature aspen stands suitable for nesting and foraging. However, depending on the locations of surface disturbing activities, less than or greater than 22 acres of red-naped sapsucker habitat could be impacted. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area encompassing the lease area. Habitat alteration from the proposed project is anticipated to cause insignificant changes at this scale. This area contains approximately 8,469 acres of aspen habitats suitable for this species. Of these 8,469 acres, 3,812 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 45% of red-naped sapsucker habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 22 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted red-naped sapsucker habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 45.0% to 45.3%.

None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable anthropogenic activities within this area, when combined with the proposed action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Sudden Aspen Decline may contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. If geothermal activities impact aspen habitats, red-naped sapsucker habitat quantity and quality would be further reduced and would likely negatively affect red-naped sapsucker distributions and abundance within the Tomichi Dome area. However, Forest-wide habitat for this species includes a total of 1,535,234 acres of potentially suitable habitat, so the amount of forest-wide habitat affected would be negligible. Summary and Conclusion The negative effects from this project may negatively impact individuals due to habitat loss, disturbance/displacement and nest abandonment/loss of young, but are not anticipated to result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan.

References Aldridge, C.L., and M.S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: habitat-based approach for endangered Greater Sage-Grouse. Ecological Applications 17:508-526.

Aldridge, C.L., S.E. Nielsen, H.L. Beyer, M.S. Boyce, J.W. Connelly, S.T. Knick, and M.A. Schroeder. 2008. Range-wide patterns of Greater Sage-Grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions 14:983-994.

Beauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. (2006, November 30). Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 62 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdf [16Feb 2007].

Beck, J.L., K.P. Reese, J.W. Connelly, and M.B. Lucia. 2006. Movements and survival of juvenile Greater Sage-Grouse in southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1070-1078.

BLM 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area, Imperial County, California. February 2007.

Braun, C.E., J.H. Enderson, M.R. Fuller, Y.B. Linhart and C.D. Marti. 1996. Northern Goshawks and Forest Management in the Southwestern United States. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev. 96-2. pg 9.

Braun, C. E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. S. Gashwiler, and M. H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation committee report on effects of sagebrush communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171.

CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife). 2010. 2009 Elk Harvest Summaries. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/A92D1424-3F8A-4649-B115- C13C132255BF/0/2009StatewideElkHarvest.pdf

CDOW. 2010a. Elk 2009 Post-hunt Population Estimates. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/C166578A-2F79-4C63-9CE2- 791615E5E016/0/2009posthuntElkpopulationestimates.pdf

CDOW. 2010b. 2009 Deer Harvest Summaries. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/7DC2154D-1992-41E5-88F8- 9B6C325CF14C/0/2009StatewideDeerHarvest.pdf

CDOW. 2010c. Deer 2009 Post-hunt Population Estimates. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/70BACC42-3BE5-4DC1-BD63- 0B067DDF6C9E/0/2009DeerPostHuntPopulationEstimates.pdf

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, B.L. Walker, and J.M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitat selection and energy development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:187-195.

Dobkin, D. S. and J. D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe landscapes in jeopardy. Distributions, abundances, and the uncertain future of birds and small mammals in the Intermountain West. High Desert Ecological Research Institute, Bend, OR.

Doyle, T. J. 1997. The timberline sparrow, Spizella (breweri) taverneri, in Alaska, with notes on breeding habitat and vocalizations. Western Birds 28:1-12.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 63 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of elk in relation to logging disturbances. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(4): 926-930.

Frey, J. and B. Diamond. 2010. Gunnison Basin Gunnison Sage-Grouse Lek Count Summary and Population Estimate, Final Report 22 March – 10 May Lek Season. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Gunnison Basin, Colorado. 38 pgs.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of Colorado. Niwot, CO. pgs. 81-82

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. 2005. Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide conservation plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Birds/GunnisonConsPlan.htm

Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, a Colorado Field Guide. Second Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. pgs 82-85, 90-98, 145-151, 375-386,

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, Technical Editors. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. GTR-RM-253. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pgs. 41, 119.

Hayward, G.D., R.K. Steinhorst, and P.H. Hayward. 1992. Monitoring boreal owl populations with nest boxes: sample size and cost. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(4):777-785.

Hillis, J.M., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan and D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining Elk Security: the Hillis paradigm. Elk Vulnerability Symposium, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. April 10-12, 1991. pgs 38-43.

Holmes, J. A. and M. J. Johnson (2005, January 13). Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf [Accessed April 2005].

Hoover, R.L. and D.L. Wills, eds. 1984. Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. 46-50, 58-60.

Kennedy, P.L. (2003, January 2). Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf

Kingery, H.E. ed. 1998.Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO. Pgs 210-211, 228-229, 236-237. Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 64 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis

Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat Effectiveness for Elk as Influenced by Roads and Cover. Journal of Forestry. October 1979. p 658-660.

Mikkola, H. 1983. Owls of Europe. Buteo Books, Vermillion, S.D. 397pp.

Mueggler, W.F. 1985. Vegetation Associations in Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States, DeByle and Winokur, eds. General Technical Report RM- GTR-119. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pg. 45

Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, Idaho. 47 pages.

Petersen, K. L., and L. B. Best. 1985. Brewer’s Sparrow nest-site characteristics in a sagebrush community. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:23-27.

Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2): 521-530.

Remington, T. E. and C. E. Braun. 1985. Sage grouse food selection in winter, North Park, Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 1055-1061.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States.

Rotenberry, J. T., M. A. Patten, and K. L. Preston. 1999. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, No. 390. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pgs 8, 24-27, 114-115.

Sarell, M. J., and K. P. McGuinness. 1996. Status of the Brewer’s sparrow in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-77. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. 12 pages.

Sedgwick, J. A. 1987. Avian habitat relationships in pinyon-juniper woodland. Wilson Bulletin 99:413-431.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 65 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Seglund, A.E., A.E. Ernst, and D.M. O’Neill. 2005. Gunnison’s prairie dog conservation assessment. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Laramie, Wyoming. Unpublished Report. 87 pp. Available online: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/046CC670-0381-48FD-9408- E2B7BADD8B9B/0/GPD_Assessment2005.pdf, Assessed September 27, 2010.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Number 425 in A. Poole, and F. Gill (editors). The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

USDA Forest Service 2010. Rocky Mountain Region Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species. http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/R2_TES_Site_2007/sensitive/matrices/2010_r2_tes_by_unit.d oc

USDA Forest Service, 2010a. Region 2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service, 2010b. Region 2 Species Conservation Assessments. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service 2010c. Tomichi Dome Lease Habitat Field Verification. Internal document, available in project file.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Sensitive Species Evaluation Forms. www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp.

USDA Forest Service 2005b. Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervis elaphus nelsoni) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. www.fs.usda.gov/gmug.

USDA Forest Service 2005c. Environmental Assessment, Management Indicator Species, forest Plan Amendment to the LRMP for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. March, 2005. Delta, CO. www.fs.usda.gov/gmug.

USDA Forest Service 2005d. Merriam’s Turkey (Meleagris gallapovo merriami) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. www.fs.usda.gov/gmug.

USDA Forest Service 2005e. Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nucahlis) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. www.fs.usda.gov/gmug.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 66 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis

USDA Forest Service 2005f. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. www.fs.usda.gov/gmug.

USDA Forest Service 2005g. American Marten (Martes americana) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. www.fs.usda.gov/gmug.

USDA Forest Service 2005h. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. www.fs.usda.gov/gmug.

USDA Forest Service, 2001a. Management Indicator Species Assessment, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Habitat Capability Model, Rocky Mountain Region, Documentation and Users Guide. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Renewable Resources, Lakewood, CO. p 4-6.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Amended Land and Resource Management Plan, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO.

USDI-BLM. 2010. Final Report: Geothermal Resource Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Electrical Generation, Tomichi Dome and Surrounding Area, GMUG NF, Colorado. Prepared by Elser, A.M, A.L. Robbins, and D.P. Stilwell, Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Revised 12-month finding for the Southern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas). Washington, D.C. Federal Register. Volume 70, Number 188: pages 56680 – 56684.

Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Dougherty. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-2654.

Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21-41.

Wiggins, D. (2005, March 31). Purple Martin (Progne subis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/purplemartin.pdf

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, B.C. Wales, M.A. Hemstrom, W.J. Hann, M.G. Raphael, R.S. Holthausen, R.A. Gravenmier, and T.D. Rich. 2002a. Modeled effects of

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 67 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis sagebrush-steppe restoration on Greater Sage-Grouse in the interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 16:1223-1231.

Wisdom, M.J., B.C. Wales, M.M. Rowland, M.G. Raphael, R.S. Holthausen, T.D. Rich, and V.A. Saab. 2002b. Performance of Greater Sage-Grouse models for conservation .assessment in the interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 16:1232-1242.

Wisdom, M.J., C.W. Meinke, S.T. Knick, and M.A. Schroeder. In press. Factors associated with extirpation of sage-grouse. Studies in Avian Biology, Cooper Ornithological Society.

Zielinski, William J. and Thomas E. Kucera, technical editors. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW- GTR-157. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 163 p.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 68 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Appendices

Appendix A (See Separate Attachment)

Acres of Recorded Activities in the 39,848-acre Cumulative Effects Area since 1970 (report current as of July 2010) Appendix B. List of Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species considered for this analysis

Species Species and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Habitat Present and Affected by Project

Colorado River cutthroat No Inhabits mid- to high-elevation cold-water streams and trout rivers. Species not present in Hot Springs Creek which runs between Tomichi Dome and the north parcel. Bluehead sucker No Small to mid-sized tributaries of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Prefers rock/gravel substrates and cool water temperatures. Mountain sucker No Small to mid-sized tributaries of the western US and Canada. Prefers low-gradient streams that consist of riffles, pools and runs. Roundtail chub No Mid-sized to large tributaries of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Prefers slower to moderate water with bouldery to sand/silt substrates. Gunnison’s prairie dog Yes Inhabits grasslands and semi-desert or montane shrublands at elevations of ~5,900-12,000 ft . No prairie dog colonies were found during field visits in October 2009. There are no documented occurrences in the project area but potential habitat is present. White-tailed prairie dog No Inhabits open shrublands, semidesert grasslands, and mountain valleys at elevations up to 10,000 ft. Project area is outside the range of this species. Spotted bat No Likely 6,000-8,000 feet in Colorado. Cliffs, ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, desert scrub; rough, arid, desert terrain. Wet meadows used for foraging. No roosting habitat in project area. Wolverine No Sagebrush to alpine. Uses a large variety of habitat types, although usually remote and inaccessible to humans. Riparian areas may be important especially in winter. Wolverine is not known to exist in Colorado since 1919, except for one collared male from Wyoming in 2009, not in this area. Species Species and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Habitat Present and Affected by Project

River otter No Requires permanent water, of relatively high quality. Specializes on fish; requires suitable den and resting sites. No suitable habitat present in project area, streams too small to support otter. American marten Yes Subalpine, spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests, alpine tundra and occasionally Montane forests. Generally associated with older growth or mixed age stands of spruce fir and lodgepole pine. Tracks found within lease area, on the north side of Tomichi Dome. Fringed myotis No Most common in coniferous woodlands and greasewood, oakbrush, and saltbrush shrublands at elevations from 5,000 to 7,500 feet. Caves, mines, and stone buildings serve as roost sites, both for day and night roosting, as well as for hibernation. No roosting sites present in project area. Rocky Mountain bighorn No Summer habitat high mountain meadows and forests, winter sheep lower elevation meadows, shrubsteppe and forest. Not known or expected to occur in project area, nearest known sheep herd is to the north/northwest in the Quartz Creek and Fossil Ridge area. Over the past 10 years, there have been several sheep sitings in the Tomichi Dome area . These animals were most likely young rams dispersing. A young ram was observed during the summer of 2009 crossing the road near Hot Springs Reservoir, heading towards the Tomichi Dome area (B. Diamond, CDOW terrestrial biologists pers. comm.). Desert bighorn sheep No Desert canyons. Project is outside the range of this species. Townsend big-eared bat No Up to approximately 9,500 feet. Variety of scrub and forest habitats. Cool places like mines, caves, buildings. Rock fissures used for roosting and hibernation. Forages in open woodlands, along forest edges, and over water. No suitable roosting habitat present in project area. Pygmy shrew (montane) Possible Moist boreal (spruce-fir) habitats above 9600 feet.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 71 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Species Species and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Habitat Present and Affected by Project

Kit fox No Found exclusively in arid and semi-arid desert and shrubsteppe habitat. Dens in burrows; apparently, vast majority of dens are located in existing holes expanded by the foxes--most often prairie dog burrows, badger digs, and natural water-drainage tubes; however, can dig own burrows. Project area is outside the range of this species. Northern goshawk Possible Spruce/fir, Douglas fir, mixed conifer, aspen, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine. Uses a variety of forest structural stages although interior mature or old growth forests are required for nesting. Known breeding territory likely overlaps the north parcel north of Hot Springs Reservoir. Boreal owl Possible Above 9,200 feet. Spruce/fir, mixed spruce-fir/aspen. Habitat present in project area. Sage sparrow No Suitable breeding habitat of interior subspecies: generally extensive, unfragmented tracts of open to semi-open dry chaparral, desert scrub, sage shrublands <6,500 ft associates most often with big sagebrush; also uses saltbush, bitterbrush, shadscale, rabbitbrush, greasewood, chamisa. Migratory. Uncommon or rare in the Upper Gunnison Basin based on Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory data. Area is above known elevation occurrence of this species. Ferruginous hawk No Below 6,000 feet, rarely to 9,500 feet. Large open grasslands and shrublands. Uncommon to rare in the Upper Gunnison Basin. Have been observed in the Upper Gunnison Basin during fall migration (M.Vasquez pers. Obs.). No nesting habitat present in project area. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Yes Primary habitat is large, contiguous, and gently rolling areas of sagebrush; also in summer native or cultivated meadows, grasslands, aspen, and willow thickets adjacent to or interspersed with sagebrush. Occupied habitat present in project area.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 72 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Species Species and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Habitat Present and Affected by Project

Northern harrier No Breeding habitat includes open wetlands, marshy meadows, wet pastures, and marshes; also (more predominantly in the western U.S.) dry upland prairies, mesic grasslands, drained marshes, croplands, cold desert shrubsteppe, and riparian woodlands. No nesting habitat present in project area. Yellow-billed Cuckoo No Accidental above 6,000 feet. Lowland riparian forests and urban areas with tall trees. Mature closed-canopy forests. No habitat in project area. Known to breed in the North Fork valley near Hotchkiss. Olive-sided flycatcher Possible < 11,500 feet. Open mature spruce/fir and Douglas Fir, especially with abundant dead trees bordering meadows, bogs, and other open foraging areas. Other coniferous, aspen, and riparian forests used less often. Forages in woodlands near edges, clearings, bogs, streams, and burned areas. Uses tall exposed perches in tops or high exposed limbs of trees. Migratory. Black swift No (< 14,000 feet. Forages over all types of terrain. Nests in crevices, ledges, caves on high rocky cliffs, preferably near or behind waterfalls or over pools. Migratory. No nesting habitat in project area. American peregrine No Usually below 10,000 feet, very rare to 11,500 feet. Nest on falcon cliffs, forage over adjacent coniferous and riparian forests, and other habitats. Migrants occur mostly around reservoirs, rivers, and marshes, but also grasslands, agricultural areas, and other habitats. May forage in project area but no nesting habitat present. Bald eagle Yes Nests near perennial fish-bearing lakes and larger streams. Not known or expected to breed in project area, casual visitor at other times, winters in lower elevations in Upper Gunnison Basin along river corridors and major creek corridors. Known winter concentration/use along the Hot Springs Creek corridor, which overlaps the north FS lease parcel. White-tailed ptarmigan No Primarily alpine habitats and subalpine habitats at or near treeline.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 73 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Species Species and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Habitat Present and Affected by Project

Loggerhead shrike No Rare above 6,000-9,000 feet. Open riparian areas, agricultural areas, grasslands, shrublands, sometimes open pinyon-juniper. Observed during the breeding season at lower elevations in flat, sagebrush shrublands near perennial streams and riparian areas (Stridiron Gulch and Wiley Gulch) several miles east/northeast of the Waunita Hot Springs and northeast of the project area (M. Vasquez pers. obs. 2000). Migratory. Not known or expected to occur in project area due to high elevation and a lack of preferred habitat. Lewis’ woodpecker No Below 8,000 feet, very rare accidental to 10,000 feet. Lowland and foothill riparian forests and agricultural areas, urban areas with tall deciduous trees (cottonwood). Open ponderosa pine and oak, especially in logged or burned areas. Rare in pinyon-juniper. Prefers a good understory of grasses and shrubs to support insect populations. Favored nest trees are ponderosa pine and cottonwood. No habitat present in project area. Present in the Upper Gunnison Basin in the Gunnison River Corridor and other major stream corridors containing deciduous trees. Flammulated owl Possible 6,000-10,000 feet. Old growth and mature ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, spruce/fir mixed with aspen, pinyon-juniper, hardwood forests. American three-toed Possible 8,000-11,500 feet. Spruce/fir, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, woodpecker ponderosa pine, and burned forests of older age classes. Typically observed in mature/old growth spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests on the Gunnison Ranger District (M.Vasquez pers. Obs.).

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 74 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Species Species and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Habitat Present and Affected by Project

Purple martin Possible < 10,000 feet. Old growth aspen, mixed aspen/ponderosa pine or Douglas fir, deciduous riparian woodlands, burns with snags especially when near water and open foraging areas (parks, forest openings, open grassy river valleys, lake shores, marsh edges, agricultural areas, open woodlands, towns). Nests built in cavities in trees and cliffs, loose rock, and crevices in old buildings. Migratory. No known documented occurrences in project area but potential habitat is present. Brewer’s sparrow Yes Breeds primarily in sagebrush shrublands. Nests in small shrubs or low trees, usually less than one foot above ground. Migratory. Habitat present in project area. Columbian sharp-tailed No Open grasslands and shrublands. Outside of the range of grouse this species. Boreal toad No 7,000-11,860 feet. Marshes, springs, wet meadows, margins of streams, beaver ponds, lakes, glacial ponds, irrigation ditches. Not known or expected to occur in the project watersheds based on survey results and CDOW range/presence maps (CDOW GIS data). Northern leopard frog Possible Up to 11,000 feet. Variety of usually permanent water sources (especially rooted aquatic vegetation) including banks and shallow areas of marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, springs, and irrigation ditches. Wet meadows and grassland are also used. Breeding pools commonly contain algae mats, vegetation, and clear water. Occurs in Tomichi Creek, outside the project and cumulative effects area. Great Basin silverspot No Associated with Viola spp. Wet meadows, seeps, sloughs from 5200 to 9000 feet. Not known or expected to occur in project area.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 75 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Appendix C. Management Indicator Species Considerations Species Present and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Affected by Project Common trout Yes The CDOW maintains Hot Springs Reservoir as a put- and-take fishery for rainbow trout. Rainbow trout are stocked in the reservoir each year and population is not self-sustaining. Individuals may escape into Hot Springs Creek downstream of the reservoir. Elk Yes Various habitats including oak, sage, aspen, and conifer forests. Winter range includes lower elevation oak and sage, summer range primarily higher elevation forest. Occurs in the project area year- round. Abert’s squirrel No Obligate to ponderosa pine. Mature pine and pine- oak habitats, primarily on the Uncompahgre Plateau. No suitable habitat present in project area. The Upper Gunnison Basin is on the periphery of this species range and contains poor to marginal habitat. Documented occurences on the district are primarily in the Cochetopa Park area, and north of Lake City (Gunnison District Wildlife Observation/Survey Records). Brewer’s sparrow Yes Breeds primarily in sagebrush shrublands. Nests in small shrubs or low trees, usually less than one foot above ground. Habitat present in project area. Northern goshawk Possible Up to 11,200 feet. Spruce/fir, Douglas fir, mixed conifer, aspen, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine. Uses a variety of forest structural stages although mature or old growth interior forests are required for nesting. Merriam’s wild turkey No Associated with Gambel oak, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, and meadow edges. No suitable habitat in project area, in terms of nesting and roosting habitat. This species has been documented on the district in 2002 in the Marshall Creek and Millswitch Creek drainages, and in the Sawtooth area in 2004.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 76 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis Species Present and/or Habitat Description and Requirements Affected by Project Pine marten (American Yes Subalpine, spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests, marten) alpine tundra and occasionally montane forests. Generally associated with older growth or mixed age stands of spruce fir and lodgepole pine. All suitable habitats surveyed on the district have resulted in marten detections. Red-naped sapsucker Likely Mature aspen, including aspen with a riparian willow component. Numerous observations in mature aspen and willow have been documented on the district. Also forages in conifer forests (ponderosa pine, Douglas fir) in early spring prior to green-up of deciduous vegetation. Suitable habitat is present in project area.

Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Nomination 77 Biological Evaluation / MIS analysis