@2/82
200?
‘
PAGE
of
and.
2
the
1993,
PRIDE.
on
Fish
BLM
JUL
Act
INAMERICA Biologist
TAKE intcrtie
Thc
Tortoise.
population
BioJogical
NV
a
Willow Nevada.
November, associated
leucocephalus)
in
Species
Desert
Wildlife
Office, Mojave their
to
Southwest
prepared
Southern
the
and
ie)d
two
—- F
to
prepared
contact has
(Haliacetus
Southwestern
project
Fly Interior
Endangered
these
FS was
Office
species
Service,
the
effects
Eagle the please Office for
the
Way) of
that
Offlc Concurrence,
State
-—x: (BLM)
these
of
1W Bald
for
Field under
endangered
of
Field
Wildlife affect”
CALIENTE adverse -940$ SWIP
tndstria
n 122007
Impacts
Ely the
MANAGEMENT
N. Nevada
an Oftce the RecelvQd
Vegas,
893(11
to
information,
Request
OCT
(702 for Nevada
Las
Field BLM
threatened
fish. possible
Management
discuss
adversely
LAND and
So. consultation Ely
tø potential Nevada BA
A
33500 and to The
7 impacts Departhient NV
U.S.
Of Portion
Ely. the Land
due additional
Bo
Coordinator.
BA.
of http://www.hlm.gov/n’/sVeii.html
likely
original
section Vegas,
I-1C33 finding.
extirnus)
States
not potential
require
Portion the
Consultation Southern agassizii).
Las Species
BUREAU analyzing this
on
Supervisor, Bureau 7 128.
— attached or
formal fratfli
BA affect,
the
with T&E
update
a
field
United
in Office,
7757268111
Southern
to
Section
(SWIP)
analysis
to: Assessment
(Gopherus “may
Manager.
questions
775-726-8
requests
of
at
(BA)
Masters.
attached
any
(Empidon Refer Ely
Assistant Wildlife included Field $WIP— Fornal Project
includes concuiTence
@S47
is
Tortoise
find
Styles Biological have
Elroy finding
BLM
BA
Reply a
you In 6840(P) (NV-045.07)
Memorandum To:
From: Subject:
The
proposcd lesert Assessment Please The Flycatcher and requests habitats
If Alicia
Attachments:
cc:
3øi2@07 of:
LLC
PROJECT
Direction
ASSESSMENT
the of:
by:
PORTION Management
Inc. 2007
THE
2,
under
Behalf
INTERTIE
Transmission,
Land
EPG,
FOR
Prepared
July
On and
of
for
Basin
SOUTHERN
BIOLOGICAL
Bureau
Great
Prepared
SOUTHWEST
FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Project Description 1 1.3 Prior Studies and Section 7 Consultation 3 1.4 Data Collection 3
2.0 Study Area and Environmental Setting 5 2.1 Physiographic Province 5 2.2 Biotic Communities 5
3.0 Species Accounts 7 3.1 Bald Eagle 7 3.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 9 3.3 Desert Tortoise 14 3.4 Desert Tortoise Habitat 18 3.5 Results of the 2006 Desert Tortoise Surveys 20
4.0 Unmitigated Impacts 24 4.1 Introduction 24 4.2 Bald Eagle 24 4.3 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 25 4.4 Desert Tortoise 25 4.5 Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat 26
5.0 Mitigation Planning 28 5.1 Mitigation Measures Specifically for the Mojave Desert Tortoise 30
6.0 Cumulative Effects 35 6.1 Introduction 35 6.2 Bald Eagle and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 35 6.3 Desert Tortoise Mojave Population 35
7.0 Habitat Compensation for the Desert Tortoise 37
8.0 Determination of Effects 38 8.1 Bald Eagle 38 8.2 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 38 8.3 Mojave Desert Tortoise 38 8.4 Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat 39
9.0 References 40
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 1 1
2
A- A-
A-19 A-i A-37 A-40 A-il A-45 A-49 A-41 A-57 EPG
2007
2,
July
Evaluations
ii
Species
Status
Evaluation
Special
Determinations
Species
for
(continued)
Portion
Status
Assessment
Additional -
A
Contents
Reptiles Fish Invertebrates Mammals Plants Birds
Amphibians Justification
Southern
Special of —
Biological
Introduction References Other Table Appendix
Final
SWIP 2
19
22 28 26 29
21
EPG
2007
2,
July
BA
BA
Area
Areas
this
this
in
in
Habitat
Habitat
Transects
Addressed
Tortoise
Addressed
Tortoise
Triangle
on
Desert
Desert Species
Species
TABLES
FIGURES
of
to
to
OF
OF
Observed
Non-Critical
Relevant
Relevant
LIST
Categories
LIST
and
Thereof
Habitat
Three
Sign
Measures
Critical
Measures
for
Right-of-Way
and
Critical
Within
Criteria
Project
Mitigation
Mitigation
Portion
Location
Tortoise
Tortoise
and
the
Assessment
Disturbance Goals Desert Generic Selective
Project Desert Along
Southern —
Biological
1
2 3 1 5 4
2
Final
SWIP -----.—-—-
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.7 PURPOSE
This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared to assess the potential impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of the southern portion of the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) on the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailll extimus), and Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizil; Mojave Desert population) including Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. This BA identifies measures to mitigate and compensate for potential impacts to these species, and is intended to provide the information needed by the U.S. Fish and WHdlife Service (USFWS) to conduct formal consultation and issue a Biological Opinion (BC) in accordance with requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended). Also included in Appendix A of this document is a brief discussion of other special status species that possess a level of protection or concern in the state of Nevada and could potentially be found in the project area. These are species listed by the Nevada State Office of the Bureau of Land Management fBLM) as sensitive species, and species monitored by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), and were included in the BA at the request of BLMand NDOW.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Great Basin Transmission, LLC (Great Basin) proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a single-circuit, overhead 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Harry Allen Substation, ) located in Dry Lake, Nevada, to a point approximately 3 miles west of the proposed White Pine Energy Station (WPES) located approximately 34 miles north of Ely, Nevada (Figure 1).
Located in White Pine, Nye, Lincoln, and Clark counties, the transmission line (approximately 264 miles in length) will consist of self-supporting, steel-lattice, and steel-pole H-frame structures placed approximately 1,200 to 1,500 feet apart. The SWIP will also include a new substation located approximately 18 miles northwest of Ely (Thirtymile Substation), where it will interconnect with the existing 345kV Falcon to Gonder line.
The transmission line and associated facilities comprise the southern portion of the Midpoint to Dry Lake segment of the SWIP, which was approved by the BLM in 1994. The SWIP right-of- way was granted by the BLMto Idaho Power Company (IPC), when the project was approved in 1994, and reissued (extended) in 1999 and 2004. Great Basin has an option to purchase the SWIP (including the BLM right-of-way) from IPC, and has been authorized by IPC to complete the project permitting process, including obtaining a notice to proceed from the BLM.
The transmission line will create a connection between existing electrical grids and service areas in southern Nevada (Nevada Power Company) and northern Nevada (Sierra Pacific), and willcontribute to increased transmission reliabilityand sharing of the electrical supplies between the regions of the West. It also will provide a means to transmit power from the proposed WPES, and possibly from other power generation projects (e.g., proposed wind energy projects north of Ely) to market.
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 7 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 t3 PRIOR STUDIES AND SECTION 7 CONSULTATION
The BLM prepared an environmental impact statement for the SWIP—the Southwest Intertie Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (SWIP EIS) and Proposed Plan Amendment (July 1993)—prior to approval of the SWIP right-of-way in 1994. A BA (Dames & Moore/IPC 1993) and two BOs (FWS, March 23, 1994, File No. 1-5-94-F-28R; FWS, May 12, 1993, File No. 1-5-93-F-91) also were prepared in connection with the SWIP EIS and right-of-way approval. The conclusion of the BOs was that the SWIP would adversely affect the threatened Mojave population of the Desert Tortoise but would not jeopardize its continued existence, in light of specified reasonable and prudent measures to minimize take. An incidental take statement was issued for Desert Tortoise in connection with the BOs. The BOs also concurred with the BLM’sconclusion that the SWIP was not likely to adversely affect the endangered Bald Eagle or the Peregrine Falcon.
The BLM and USFWS have determined that a new BA (this BA) and a new BO should be prepared for the southern portion of the SWIP, in connection with ongoing efforts by Great Basin and the BLMto finalize the construction, operation, and maintenance plan (COM Plan) for that segment prior to final approval and construction.
1.4 DATACOLLECTION
Biological data were initiallycollected during the biological inventory for the SWIP EIS. Data sources for special status species included scientific literature, existing EPG files, and agency contacts. Biological information was collected within 2-mile-wide study corridors, centered on J the proposed alignments of the various alternative study corridors for the entire 500-mile SWIP project from the Twin Falls area (Midpoint Substation) in Idaho, to Dry Lake, Nevada.
In connection with these earlier studies, agency personnel were asked to provide information on potential or known occurrences of sensitive wildlife and plant species, as well as habitats of special concern within the study corridors. Agencies that provided biological information included BLM, Forest Service, USFWS, NDOW, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Idaho, Nevada, and Utah Natural Heritage programs. No site-specific field-survey work was conducted as part of the biological inventory nor were any such studies conducted for the 1992 BA. The Mojave Desert Tortoise, which had been listed as threatened in 1990, was identified as an important species that occupies habitat within the study corridor; therefore, specific data on distribution and abundance was obtained from the BLM’s Las Vegas District Office, including maps showing the BLM’sDesert Tortoise Habitat Areas for Nevada including the current existing Coyote Springs Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and maps showing the results of 1.5-mile triangular strip-transect surveys for the Desert Tortoise.
For the purposes of this BA, in addition to the data gathered initiallyin 1992, updated biological information was collected at the request of the USFWS. This included literature reviews, as well as field surveys for the Desert Tortoise along the transmission line from the southern end of Delamar Lake to the Harry Allen Substation. In addition, recent efforts in 2006 also have included consultation with the BLM (Ely and Las Vegas field offices), and NDOW. Individuals from each of these organizations have participated in discussions and meetings to determine
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 3 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 the content of the BA and to provide direction and relevant information regarding species of J concern to be included in the Appendix. Based on this input, additional literature reviews have been conducted and information has been compiled for these species. General field reviews also have been completed for the transmission line and surveys conducted for Sage Grouse and sensitive plant species (including the Las Vegas buckwheat).
FinalBiologicalAssessment 4 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July2, 2007 SECTION 2.0 STUDY AREA AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project crosses four Nevada counties and covers approximately 264 miles of diverse habitat, from the vicinity of Dry Lake, Clark County north, to the vicinity of Ely, in White Pine County (see Figure 1).
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE
The region is located in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, which occupies the southwestern interior of North America. The long, narrow mountain ranges, broad valleys, and soils of this province are primarily the result of regional geological processes that stretched the earth’s crust 8 to 12 million years ago. The soils in this area are classified as thermic soils, which have mean annual soil temperatures of 59 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference between mean summer and mean winter temperatures is greater than 9 degrees Fahrenheit at a depth of 20 inches or in shallow soils at the soil-bedrock interlace. These soils are generally shallow, gravelly, and medium to coarse-textured on gently to moderately steep valley slopes and hillsides (Hendricks 1985), and were formed in calcareous, gravelly alluvium derived from mostly sedimentary rocks. The project area is located in a region that averages 3 to 6 inches per year of precipitation, most of which occurs during winter storms. Summer rains originating from the Gulf of Mexico rarely produce rainfall in the area.
2.2 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
The Brown, Lowe, and Pase system for classification and description of North American biotic communities (Brown 1994) is used to identify and classify biotic communities in this BA. For a more detailed discussion of plant communities and classification systems, refer to Chapter 3 of the 1994 EIS for the SWIP.
The project area features warm-temperate and cold-temperate desert land biomes, including, Mojave Desert scrub and Great Basin desert scrub. The southeastern portion of Nevada is characterized as an intermediate zone between the Great Basin desert scrub located generally to the north of Delamar, Clover, and the Pahranagat mountains, and the Mojave desert scrub to their south. Plants and animals occupying Mojave Desert scrub are similar to those observed in the Lower Colorado River Subdivision of Sonoran desert scrub, within the creosote bush series, Larrea tridentata-Ambrosia dumosa association. These open-plant communities occupy areas characterized by gravelly bajadas and inconspicuous low plains. Other plants associated with this biome, include box-thorn (Lycium andersonh), Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.), and ratany (Krameria spp.).
The Great Basin Desert is the most northerly of all North American deserts (Brown 1994), the southernmost limits of which are in the southwestern United States. As a cold desert, it differs from the warm-temperate southern deserts and experiences colder, harsher winters, and the precipitation is more evenly scattered throughout the year. The Great Basin Desert also experiences greater yearly extremes in temperature (Turner 1994). The northern portion of the project area is located in both the sagebrush series, Artemisia tridentata-mixed scrub-grass
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 5 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Association, and saltbush series, Sarcobatus vermiculatus and Atriplex canescens Associations.
On more elevated sites, such as where the project traverses the Egan Range, the Great Basin Desert gives way to Great Basin Conifer Woodlands of Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and Rocky Mountain piñon (Pinus edulis). The soils that support Great Basin conifer woodland tend to be thin and rocky (Brown 1994). The Great Basin desert species of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) tends to be the most common understory species in this woodland type.
In addition to the three upland biomes discussed above, riparian areas occur in narrow communities along streams and marshes in some locations. Typical vegetation found within this biome is generally comprised of cottonwoods (Populus sp.) and willows (Salix sp.), from Steptoe Spring to White River Valley.
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 6 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 SECTION 3.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS
3.1 BALD EAGLE
Taxonomy and Listing History
The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), was first described by Linnaeus in 1766 based on an account written by Catesby (American Ornithologists’ Union [AOUJ 1998), and is closely related to the White-Tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus aibicilla) of northern Europe and Siberia.
The Bald Eagle was listed as endangered in most states in the conterminous United States on March 11, 1967, under endangered species legislation enacted in 1966 (Public Law 89-669). No Critical Habitat was designated. On July 12, 1995 (USFWS 1995a), the Bald Eagle status was delisted from endangered to threatened in all of the conterminous United States. On July 6, 1999, the USFWS proposed that the Bald Eagle be delisted because available data indicated that the species has recovered. Currently, no action has been taken to finalize the proposed delisting.
Range of Species
The Bald Eagle breeds on seacoasts, rivers, swamps, and large lakes from central Alaska across central Canada to Labrador, and south to Baja California, central Arizona, central Texas, and across the Gulf States to southern Florida. It is present locally in the interior of North ) America (AOU 1998). Bald Eagles migrate widely, but sporadically, over much of North America. They winter throughout their breeding range, but are most commonly found south of southern Alaska and southern Canada (AOU 1998). Interestingly, Bald Eagles in Florida breed in the winter (November through February) and many migrate northward in spring and summer (Terres 1980).
Habitat
Bald Eagles nest in large live trees or snags or on cliffs near seacoasts, rivers, swamps, or large lakes fAOU 1998; Ehrlich et al. 1988). They have virtually disappeared from sites within the Great Basin, where they were known to occur in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Ryser 1985).
Wintering Bald Eagles are very mobile and range widely. They willnot remain in an area without a suitable prey base, and roost sites are critical. Wintering eagles tend to congregate around unfrozen bodies of water. They typically perch in leafless trees or snags, with a good view of the adjacent water and maximum exposure to the sun. Communal night roosts may be located up to several miles from daytime use areas, and are usually located in large, well-foliated trees in a protected area such as a canyon or draw (Grubb and Kennedy 1982).
FinalBiologicalAssessment 7 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July2, 2007 Life History
Both female and male members of the Bald Eagle pair help construct the nest, which varies greatly in size. Cliffnests may consist of a few branches and crushed vegetation or they may be up to 3 meters (10 feet) across and nearly 5 meters (16 feet) deep (Hunt et al. 1992). Nests are lined with soft material, such as grasses, inner bark, moss, and pine needles. Nests are often used for multiple years, and some nests have been used for more than 35 years (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Eagles lay eggs between January and May, depending on how far north they live (NDOW, no date). Females lay 1 to 3 eggs, which are incubated by both members of the pair and hatch in 34 to 36 days (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Young take their first flight approximately 75 days after hatching (Terres 1980). The size of Bald Eagle territories may be determined by prey availability (Grubb 1995). Bald Eagles are opportunistic feeders. Fish make up the majority of the diet for many Bald Eagles, and water birds also can be an important food source. Eagles also consume mammals, shellfish, and carrion (Hunt et al. 1992). They forage from perches near water and willalso steal prey from Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), gulls, and other eagles.
Threats to the Survival of the Bald Eagle
The pesticide DDT caused eggshell thinning and marked declines in Bald Eagle populations across the United States in the 1940s through the 1960s. Eagle populations began to recover after DDT use in the United States was severely restricted in 1973.
Increasing human population and increasing recreational use of breeding and wintering grounds may threaten Bald Eagles. Breeding eagles may be disturbed by human activities such as water-based recreation near nest sites (Rubink 1982), and also may be affected by the loss of riparian habitat that provides potential nesting and perching locations. This can occur where river impoundments have inundated large reaches of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing has inhibited the regeneration of riparian tree species, and where consumption of water for human uses has lowered water tables and dewatered riparian areas (Hunt et al. 1992; Rubink 1982). Conversely, river impoundments also may benefit eagles by creating habitat for water birds and exotic fish.
Bald Eagles in the Project Area
According to available data, Bald Eagles do not breed in southern Nevada; however, they do breed in the northern portion of the state (NDOW, no date) and winter throughout the state (NDOW, no date). Traditional wintering areas in eastern Nevada are most concentrated in White Pine County. Other traditional wintering areas identified within the project area include Pahranagat Valley and the White River Valley in Nye and Lincoln counties (Herron et al. 1985). In 2000, only one breeding pair of Bald Eagles was documented in Nevada. There are roughly 100 to 150 Bald Eagles wintering in Nevada, and populations are monitored every three years (NDOW, no date). In 2001 there were three breeding pairs in Nevada, and in 2002 there was one breeding pair in Nevada (USFWS, no date). These breeding pairs were not in the project area.
RnaI BiologicalAssessment EPG 8 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 3.2 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER
Taxonomy and Listing History
The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillil extimus) was originally described by Audubon (1828) as Traill’s Flycatcher (Muscicapa traillhl),from specimens obtained in wooded areas along the Arkansas River. Since that time, it has been placed in the genus Empidonax, and four subspecies are commonly recognized (Hubbard 1987).
The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher was listed as endangered, without designated Critical Habitat, on February 27, 1995, primarily because of loss and modification of riparian habitats (USFWS 1995b). Critical Habitat was later designated on July 22, 1997. A court decision in 2001 resulted in a subsequent final rule on critical habitat on October 19, 2005 (70 FR 60885). In addition to its protected status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), this flycatcher subspecies is classified as protected wildlifeunder Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 501 (NNHP 2004). The bulk of the flycatchers’ distribution is in Arizona, New Mexico, and California, and 18 Critical Habitat units totaling 599 river miles were designated in those states (USFWS 1997). The Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher was made available on March 5, 2003 (USFWS 2003). In Nevada, management units were identified for the Virgin River and Pahranagat Valley, and there is designated Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher on the Virgin River; however, all of these locations are outside of the project area. Critical Habitat units had previously been designated by the 1997 rule at Upper and Lower Pahranagat Lake and at the Key Pittman Wildlife Management Area. However the final rule designating Critical Habitat for this species excluded the habitat along the Pahranagat Wash and added habitat units on the Virgin River in Nevada and Utah (USFWS J 2005).
Range of Species
Phillips (1948) described E. t. extimus, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, from specimens collected on the San Pedro River in southeastern Arizona. Historic breeding records exist for southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, southwestern Colorado, and northwestern Mexico (USFWS 2003). Between 1993 and 2001, 258 territories were documented in New Mexico, 359 in Arizona, and 256 in California. Prior to 1962, only three records were known for Nevada (USFWS 2003). However, between 1993 and 2001, 73 territories across southern Nevada, in the Amargosa River Drainage, Meadow Valley Wash, and the Pahranagat River Drainage, were identified (USFWS 2003).
All subspecies of the Willow Flycatcher winter in Central America, from southwestern Mexico (Nayarit and Oaxaca) south to Panama and possibly northwestern Columbia (AOU 1998), but migration routes are relatively unknown (USFWS 2003) and are believed to pass through primarily the southern and southwestern parts of the United States, with the northern subspecies passing through the breeding areas of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (AOU 1998; Sogge et al. 1997). The normal spring migration period is from early May through early June, and the fall migration may extend from late July through September (Phillips et al. 1964).
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 9 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Habitat
In the western United States, Southwestern Willow Flycatchers are often found on willow- covered islands, brush along watercourses, beaver meadows, and mountain parks, always in close association with riparian waters and lentic waters (USFWS 2002). They may be found as high as 2,400 meters (7,875 feet), and they also follow willow- or cottonwood-lined streams out into desert regions (Terres 1980). Southwestern Willow Flycatcher territories and nest sites are usually located near open water, cienegas, marshy seeps, or saturated soils (Sogge et al. 1997). In the semiarid and arid parts of the southwest, hydrologic conditions can vary radically both within a season and between years. Many sites have surface water or saturated soil only during the early part of the breeding season. Breeding habitat on the edge of a reservoir may have standing water during a wet year, or it may be further from surface water during dry conditions.
Four specific habitat types have been described as breeding areas for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Sogge et al. 1997). The first of these types is monotypic high-elevation willow.This habitat is comprised of dense stands of willows 3 to 7 meters (10 to 23 feet) in height, with no distinct overstory. This community is often associated with sedges, rushes, or other herbaceous wetland plants. A second habitat type is monotypic exotic, with dense stands of salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) or Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) up to 10 meters (33 feet) in height. These species form a dense, closed canopy, with no distinct overstory layer.
Native broadleaf-dominated communities form a third habitat type. This habitat may be composed of a single species, such as Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii), but often contains - other broadleaf tree and shrub species, including cottonwood (Populus spp.), other willows, boxelder (Acer negundo), ash (Fraxinus spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), and buttonbush J (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The vegetation in this habitat type ranges in height from 3 to 15 meters (10 to 49 feet). There are trees of various size classes, and there is often a distinct overstory. The final habitat type is a mixture of native and exotic species, including those listed above. Within any particular area, the native and exotic species may be dispersed as patches dominated by natives or exotics, or they may be more evenly distributed throughout the area.
Regardless of the species composition, all of these habitats share common structural characteristics (Sogge et al. 1997). Occupied habitats always have dense vegetation in the patch interior, and dense patches are often interspersed with small clearings, open water, or areas of sparse shrubs. Habitat patches can vary in size and shape, with some occupied areas being relatively dense, linear, contiguous stands, and others being large, irregularly shaped mosaics of dense vegetation intermingled with open areas. Patch sizes can range from as little as 0.8 hectare (2.0 acres) to several hundred hectares (several hundred to a thousand acres). Southwestern Willow Flycatchers have not been found nesting in narrow riparian habitats less than 10 meters (33 feet) wide.
Migration and wintering habitat may differ from breeding habitat. During migration, riparian habitat along major southwestern drainages is commonly used, but a close association with water may not always exist. These areas might be considered stopover areas, and may be very important resources (USFWS 2002).
Winter habitat in Mexico, Central, and northern South America may be humid or semi-arid areas, such as those bordering woodlands and in second-growth forests, savannahs, fields, and
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 10 SWIP— Southern Portion July2, 2007 pastures (USFWS 2002). They also may occur in habitat more typical of that used during breeding, and Southwestern WillowFlycatchers have been observed defending winter territories ] near water (USFWS 2002).
Life History
Southwestern Willow Flycatchers normally select nest sites in thickets of shrubs and trees between 4 and 7 meters (13 to 23 feet) in height, with dense foliage between ground level and 4 meters (13 feet) (USFWS 1995b). Nest trees are often rooted in or near water. Plant species diversity in nest territories varies. The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher willnest in native riparian species where available, but it will also nest in monocultures of salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) or Russian olive (Elaea gnus angustifolia) (U.S. Geologic Survey [USGS] 2002). Nest sites are commonly reported in Geyer willow(Salix geyeriana), Goodding willow(S. gooddingi,), boxelder (Acer negundo), and live oak (Quercus agrifolia) (Sogge et al. 1997). Unusual nest sites have been reported in Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrighti,)and a climbing rose vine (Rosa multiflora) in the Gila River Valley in New Mexico (Stoleson and Finch 1999).
The nests are usually constructed in upright or slanting forks, between about 1.1 and 4.6 meters (3.6 to 15 feet) above the round (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Harrison 1979). The nest is an open, compact cup of plant bark, fiber, and grass, and it is lined with a thin layer of fine grass, and cottony and silky plant materials. There are frequently feathers in the rim, and the nest may have plant material dangling from the bottom (Harrison 1979).
Southwestern Willow Flycatchers usually spend only three to four months on their breeding ] grounds, spending the rest of the year in migration or at wintering grounds (USFWS 2002). Typically, they arrive in their breeding territories between late April and mid-June. Nest construction may begin in mid-May and is usually complete by the end of June, although second nest construction attempts may last until late July. The period for egg-laying and incubation extends from late May until late July. Chicks may be present in the nests between early June and early August, and fledging may be anytime from late June to early August. Departure dates from the nest area are not well known, but are likely to be between mid-August and mid- September.
Females lay one 18 millimeters by 14 millimeters egg per day until a clutch of 3 to 4 eggs are present (USFWS 2002). Eggs are buff or light tan and have brown markings around the blunt end. Incubation is primarily by the female and lasts 12 to 13 days after the last egg has been laid. Most eggs hatch within 48 hours of each other, with the female providing initialcare. Young are born altricial, and nestlings fledge after 12 to 15 days (Ehrlich et al. 1988, USFWS 2002).
Food preferences of the Willow Flycatcher are reported by Bent (1942), in documentation associated with the Alder Flycatcher. These were considered a single species at the time the data were collected, and the sample set included both species. In the sampled diets, animal material made up 96.05 percent, and vegetable material was only 3.95 percent of the food. Hymenopterans, including wasps, bees, and some ants, were the largest single category, comprising 41.37 percent of all food taken. Beetles were the second largest category, at 17.89 percent. Dipterans, including crane flies, robber flies, house flies, and others, provided 14.20 percent, respectively, of the diet. Hemipterans and lepidopterans accounted for 7.73 percent and 3.91 percent, and all other insects combined totaled only 2.77 percent. Other animals,
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 11 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 including ticks, spiders, millipedes, and snails, provided the balance of the animal part of the diet. The vegetable part of the diet included elderberries (Sambucus spp.), blackberries or ] raspberries (Rubus spp.), dogwood berries (Cornus spp.), juniper berries (Juniperus sp.), and unidentified fruits and seeds.
Like most other flycatchers, the Willow Flycatcher forages primarily by hovering and gleaning, flying from a perch to capture flying insects (Ehrlich et al. 1988). It tends to be fairly active, moving frequently from perch to perch (Bent 1942). It also will use gleaning techniques when foraging for spiders, millipedes, and other flightless arthropods, and also when feeding on berries.
Threats to the Survival of Southwestern Willow Flycatchers
Two primary factors have been identified as serious threats to the continued existence of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (USFWS 1995b). These threats are the loss and degradation of riparian habitat, and brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ate,). For example, it has been estimated that the State of Arizona lost 36 percent of its wetlands between 1780 and 1980 (Dahl 1990). The primary causes for riparian alteration and degradation in Arizona include urban and agricultural development, water diversion and impoundment, channelization, livestock grazing, off-road vehicles and other recreational use, and hydrological changes resulting from these uses (USFWS 1995b). The same reasons have led to the decline of wetlands in Nevada (e.g., Jones and Cahlan 1975).
Overuse by cattle and other livestock is a primary factor in the degradation and modification of riparian habitats in the western United States (Szaro 1989). The inherent characteristics of ] riparian areas (adequate water, lush vegetation, and moderate microclimate) make them attractive to cattle. The primary impacts of cattle on riparian habitats result from the removal and trampling of vegetation. Cattle also can alter plant species composition through selective grazing, or because the plants have varying tolerances to grazing. The potential impact of grazing to bird populations has been studied by Taylor (1986), who reported significant decreases of bird abundance and species richness with increased grazing pressure in riparian habitats in the semi-arid region of eastern Oregon. The USFWS (1995b) cites several references that document adverse effects on Willow Flycatchers from grazing in riparian areas, and notes that most areas known to support Southwestern Willow Flycatchers have little or no grazing.
Flooding and stream-flow alterations related to dam construction have a major impact on riparian vegetation and vertebrate populations. Upstream from dams, the impoundment of water and accumulation of salts and sediments generally preclude the establishment of native vegetation on the shore lines (Szaro 1989). In these areas, large impoundments replace free- flowing rivers with large bodies of calm water. When the water rises behind a dam, the river habitat and large areas of upland habitat are lost, leading to the direct loss of wildlifethrough drowning or displacement to unsuitable habitat (Heinzenknecht and Paterson 1978).
Riparian areas downstream from dams also have been affected by the alterations in stream flow. A series of dams on the Salt River in central Arizona has altered the downstream flow patterns such that the survival of cottonwood seedlings is virtually nonexistent for extended periods of time (Fenner et al. 1985). The primary cause of this failure appears to be the change
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 12 SWIP — Southern Portion July2, 2007 N from natural heavy flows during winter to heavy summer flow to meet irrigation demands. Although flow regulation can create riparian zones, such as along the Colorado River in the ] Grand Canyon (Stevens and Waring 1985), flood events also promote seedling establishment and the renewal of riparian systems (Applegate 1981).
Channelization of rivers results in the straightening of the channels; eliminating meanders, reducing the floodplain, increasing the gradient, and removing bank vegetation (Brooker 1985). Subsequent impacts on wildlifeinclude losses in abundance and diversity of riparian vegetation, fish, macroinvertebrates, birds, and mammals.
The USFWS (1995b) believes that the invasion of salt cedar is a factor in the loss and modification of habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Salt cedar was originally introduced to the western United States in the late 1800s as an ornamental windbreak and for erosion control. It spread rapidly along southwestern river and stream channels, frequently replacing the native vegetation. Many other human activities, including livestock grazing, water diversion, channelization, and vegetation removal, in the riparian area tend to favor the spread of salt cedar. The spread of salt cedar coincides with the decline of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, although the flycatchers have been documented to breed in dense salt cedar stands (USFWS 1995b). However, it is speculated that the salt cedar may provide poor nesting habitat, because of a decrease in the arthropod prey availability and reduced thermal protection for the nests.
Brown-headed Cowbirds also are a threat to Southwestern Willow Flycatchers because of their reproductive strategy of brood parasitism. Although Bent (1942) reports that Willow Flycatchers are uncommon hosts of cowbirds, other, more recent, studies suggest the contrary. The spread of cowbirds into the range of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher began in the late 1800s, with ] the increase in the human-population density and their associated livestock (USFWS 1995b). Ehrlich et al. (1992) state that the WillowFlycatcher is a common host to cowbirds. The USFWS (1995b) and Sogge et al. (1997) cite numerous papers that demonstrate that cowbird parasitism is a common and widespread threat to the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The flycatchers appear to be nearly incapable of rearing their own young if a cowbird chick is in the nest, and parasitism almost always leads to a complete failure of the nest (Sogge et al. 1997).
Southwestern Willow Flycatchers in the Project Area
The historic distribution of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is unclear, but it apparently occurs only sporadically throughout the Mojave region of Nevada, in lowland riparian areas and wetlands (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2006; U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2000; USFWS 2003). Outside the project area, a dozen territories were observed along the Virgin Rivet in 1997, but potential habitat also includes the Meadow Valley Wash, the Muddy River, Las Vegas Wash, and the Colorado River System (Hiatt and Boone 2003). Currently, there are no known potential nesting locations within the project area, and the only known potential nesting location is located at Lower Pahranagat Lake, northwest of Maynard Lake, and well to the north and west of the project area.
FinalBiologicalAssessment 13 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 3.3 DESERT TORTOISE (Mojave Desert Population)
Taxonomy and Listing History
The Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizil; Mojave Desert population) was first described by Cooper in 1863 as Xerobates agassizil, named after the iconoclastic Harvard professor Louis Agassiz. Various workers have assigned it to the genera Scaptochelys (Bramble 1971), Xerobates (Lamb et al. 1989), or Gopherus (Crumley 1994), the genus under which it is now recognized. The Desert Tortoise is recognized to consist of two geographically dissimilar populations: the Mojave and Sonoran. The Mojave population is defined as those tortoises north and west of the Colorado River and west of Beaver Dam Slope, Utah, and is distributed throughout southern Nevada, southeastern California, the Beaver Dam Mountains and Virgin River area of southwestern Utah, and northwestern Arizona. The Sonoran population is found in most of Arizona, western New Mexico, and south through Sonora to northern Sinaloa, Mexico. The Sonoran population of Desert Tortoises also occurs on Isla Tiburon, in the Sea of Cortez (Germano et al. 1994).
Major declines and die-offs of Desert Tortoises were observed in the Mojave Desert in the 1980s, leading to the emergency listing of the Mojave population of Desert Tortoises as threatened in 1989 (USFWS 1989). On October 13, 1989, the USFWS published a proposed rule to list the Mojave population as threatened, but because the emergency rule expired on April 2, 1990, it was necessary to publish the final rule on the same day, in order to prevent a lapse in protection for the tortoise (USFWS 1990).
— The Mojave population has been divided into six distinct population segments or recovery units, based on presumed evolutionary history (those population segments are sometimes deemed J ESUs for evolutionarily significant units). Each recovery unit has been delineated based on variations in genetic, morphological, ecological, physiological, and behavioral traits (USFWS 1994b), and a recovery plan was adopted in 1994 (USFWS 1994a). A total of 6.4 million acres of Critical Habitat was designated in 1994 fUSFWS 1994a). Within those six management units, Desert Wildlife Management Areas were identified, where populations of tortoises facing similar threats would be managed with the same strategies (UWFWS 1994a).
Regarding Desert Tortoise status in individual states, in California and Nevada the state Natural Heritage programs have listed Desert Tortoises as imperiled, and in Utah they are considered critically imperiled (NatureServe 2006). The Mojave population is on the watch list of species in Clark County, Nevada, and it is considered sensitive by the BLMand USFS (NNHD 2006). In Arizona both the Mojave and Sonoran populations of the Desert Tortoise are considered wildlife species of special concern by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) (2001). Populations are apparently secure in most of Arizona where the Desert Tortoise is designated as the Sonoran population, and are accordingly thus not covered under the ESA (NatureServe 2006).
Range of Species
The Desert Tortoise occurs generally in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts of the United States and Mexico. Differences in behavior, genetics, and morphology exist throughout their range, with the Colorado River apparently having served as an isolating mechanism; tortoises on either
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 14 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 side differ in many important ways (Germano 1994). Importantly, the history of land use and the ) scale of human-induced habitat alteration have differed between populations, with tortoises in the Mojave facing many more recent threats than those in the Sonoran Desert.
Population densities of the Desert Tortoise are decreasing in many areas, particularly in the western Mojave Desert (reviewed by Corn 1994). According to a USGS report (Berry and Medica 1995), density estimates in 1990 ranged from approximately 5 to 65 adult tortoises per square kilometer (13 to 168 per square mile) depending on location. A study in southeastern Nevada found a density of approximately 17 tortoises per square kilometer (44 per square mile), and most populations discussed in that report showed a downward trend (Berry and Medica 1995).
Habitat
Tortoises of the Mojave population are found primarily in Mojave desertscrub, but also in vegetation characteristic of the Lower Colorado River Subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub (Turner and Brown 1994). They are generally associated with communities dominated by creosote bush and other sclerophyll shrubs and small cacti (Germano et al. 1994). Some parts of their range may contain abundant Joshua trees. In the Mojave Desert, the terrain is generally gently rolling alluvial fans with sandy or gravelly soils (Ernst et al. 1994).
Adequate burrowing substrate and thermal cover species are a crucial habitat component for Desert Tortoises. In the Mojave region, Desert Tortoises will construct their own burrows to avoid extreme hot or cold temperatures. Mojave Desert Tortoises often excavate burrows under J vegetation, and they can be up to 10 meters (33 feet) deep (AGED 2001). Elevations at which tortoises occur in the Mojave range from below sea level in Death Valley, California, up to about 5,000 feet at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (AGED2001).
Life History
The annual reproductive cycle of the Mojave Desert Tortoise begins in February or March when emerging from hibernation. Mating generally takes place in the spring and may last as long as into fall (Ernst et al. 1994). Between 1 and 14 eggs are laid in an excavated nest near a shrub or burrow entrance between May and July (Ernst et al. 1994). Incubation generally lasts for 90 to 120 days. Egg hatch rates vary, but hatchling and juvenile mortalities are assumed to be very high, and it has been estimated that only 1 hatchling for every 15 to 20 nests will survive to reach sexual maturity (Lawler, no date). Average age of viability of females is primarily a function of animal size, but is usually between the ages of 12 and 25 years (USFWS 1994a). Females from the Mojave population produce from one to three clutches of eggs per year (Turner 1986).
Desert Tortoises are herbivores, consuming a wide variety of plant materials including dicot annuals, grasses, herbaceous perennials, trees, shrubs, subshrubs/woody vines, and succulents (AGED 2001). A study of Desert Tortoises’ food habits in the Mojave Desert found that they used 43 plant species, including 37 annuals and 6 perennials (Jennings 1997). The diet showed a very strong preference for native plants (95.3 percent), and some of their preferred food plants were uncommon to rare (Jennings 1997). A study of juvenile tortoises
FinalBiologicalAssessment 15 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July2, 2007 a
or
of
an
for
are
are
are
and and soil and
and
that
also
soils
EPG
their
used
2007
forbs
grass
native
before Peters
allows
OHVs brome
habitat
and in
2,
trample and
surface
summer that
tortoises invading
declines
intestinal also
accrue
to individual
soils, eggs, competes
fires
red
found split
threats
and
the
recreational July
reducing
plants native
presence
wet for also
of
density,
disease, expenditures
mortality,
they
of
of grazing on
a these
and
their tortoise
pallets,
by
areas
the
changes
particular relative
import, of
cryptogamic
maintain and
of
summer,
recreational
possibilities
(Esque
iberica), to
population
to grazing,
foods,
energy compaction,
Increased
the
Additional
dry
during
very
and
road-kill
These
Livestock
preferences
diversity
crushing
to
from
livestock
Some
survival
due
burrows,
preferences
quality
compaction
Tortoises, soil tectorum),
destruction
are
by
very several
diversity by
switch
European
development, and
hills.
tortoise
food due 1999).
(Salsola
or to
2001).
a digestion
possibly
crusts
fires
constituent
a
and food to
soils.
Livestock
species of
to
additional
on
shade
ways.
burrows. damage
tortoise
aid
plant
soil due
in soil,
15
mutilation),
urban to
(Bromus
to
tortoises
nutritional
mortality
[NPS]
to
(Lovich
and
During
to
forced study
crusts
sampling
or
damage tortoises
Population)
and
vegetation
A
affect due
Selective abundance
example,
several survival.
important
used disturbed
result
Recurrent
are
on
grass
soil
tumbleweed Since
and
in
contributor
for
collapsing include the
an
tortoises
the
of
that
infiltration
Service
activities,
washes
their
may
native
declines
they
damage bones,
(Mojave
2002).
crushing
gastroliths by decreased cheat 1994b).
on summers.
fires,
use 16
in sources
to
compromises
impact and of
1997).
selectively, major
al.
habitat but
tortoises
annuals.
of
This
as Park
brome,
reduce
water dry
a
et
wild
factors
rocks,
food diversity
OHV
or training
include
plants cicutarium), is
in found
are
and
which
utilized
can
Red
threats
and
Tortoise
by When destruction
population
diets.
the
forage
(USFWS
negative
(shooting,
is tortoise arabicus), Removal
trampling
plant
species,
ingest
(Jennings
and a
of
often
wet
exotic
(National
which
3
(S.
their by
military
may available
grazing
Devender
that
brome,
shrubs, decreased
habitat
of
Desert increase
minerals,
affect
also
(Erodium
of
994b).
causing
have
sources.
make
burrows,
1
OHVs
1994b).
some were
numerous only
1994),
red
Van
use,
vegetation,
grass
the community.
from
vandalism of
may
bush)
can
between directly depend
change
on as
food
of
are
weeds,
filaree tortoise
erosion,
Tortoises
grasses, to
habitat,
Arab
plant
2002;
facing
Tortoises 2002).
of
diet pets, additional
reduction
thermoregulation
(OHV)
species
annual
(USFWS
such
killed
and
(USFWS
proliferation
plants
fragmentation,
Impacts
population (USFWS
in
are
as
livestock
2002).
creosote
recreational
Portion
a and
foraging
be
include
tortoises Survival collapsing 1995).
native
Davis
food
of
and fuel
plant
tortoise
Assessment Desert
predation
acceptable
by (Oftedal
exotic
available
provide
exotic
perennial
increased
(e.g.
the
barbatus),
the
can
habitat
the in
and
selection,
fire
the
for
tortoises
in
rubens)
1994b). to
within
by
water,
in
proliferation
to
to
(Oftedal
tortoises
used
Tortoises
to
human
Southern
2001).
species
ephemerals,
differences
Stitt
observed
burrows, —
of
native
plant
Biological
presence
as
force
preferred
infiltration
which
food,
in
1994,
(Bromus (Spangenberg increases Desert hatchlings leading increase (Schismus Invasion (Tracy bacteria, off-highway-vehicle use increases (USFWS exotic aggravate Effects consumption fragmenting The thermoregulation. species exotic take Threats vegetation the effected with erosion, tortoises on were heavily Final found or for the food can SWIP searching
] long-term digestive deficit due to the lag time in adjustment of their gut microflora to the new food source. Their effective feeding season is thus shortened (Tracy 2001).
The presence of military operations within Desert Tortoise habitat causes impacts from construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities and roads; development of support communities; tank maneuvers; other OHV training; bombing and artillery practice; ordnance testing; and the litter resulting from these activities (USFWS 1994b).
Urban development has affected tortoises and tortoise habitat through habitat fragmentation and destruction. The construction of roads leads to habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, road kills, and increased human access into formerly remote areas. The proliferation of landfills and illegal dumps subsidizes increased population densities of predators, including ravens (Corvus corax), coyotes (Canis latrans), and feral domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). These effects are greatest nearer to human settlements (USFWS 1994). Gila Monsters (Heloderma suspectum), snakes, skunks, and foxes are also tortoise egg predators (Ernst et at. 1994; Stitt et al. 2003).
While predators are not normally a concern for tortoise populations in an undisturbed ecosystem, the perturbation of an ecosystem can cause predators to become a management issue. Increasing populations of generalist native predators have resulted in an increased rate of mortality of hatchlings and juvenile tortoises. The USFWS’s Breeding Bird Survey Program showed a 15-fold increase in raven populations in the Mojave Desert for the 20-year period from 1968 to 1988 (BLM et al. 1989). This surge in the raven population was attributed to mostly human-induced increases in food and water supplies, combined with an increase in perching and nesting structures. The food supplies listed were road-kills, landfills, trash, garbage dumps and agricultural developments. The perching structures listed were fence posts, power poles and towers, signs, buildings, bridges, and freeway access ramps. Elevated perches were historically scarce in the Mojave Desert, and such manmade substitutes provide perching sites for predatory birds. Farrell (1989) documented ravens utilizing power line towers for perches while consuming juvenile tortoises (USFWS 1994b). Human predation in the form of highway mortality and the illegal removal of adult tortoises for pets are also factors in the decreasing numbers of Desert Tortoises (Lovich 1999; USFWS 1994). Tortoises willurinate in response to harassment, and this jeopardizes their survival through the summer due to water loss (Averill Murray 2002b).
The manipulation of populations and/or individual tortoises during earlier conservation efforts was mostly unsuccessful. This may have been due to a lack of information regarding tortoise ecology, or poor planning. The translocation of in-situ tortoises and reintroduction of captive tortoises to the wild by the public are ongoing management problems. The historic tack of success of reintroductions can be attributed to several factors. Relocated tortoises often attempt to return to their home ranges (Blythe et al. 2004) and they face increased vulnerability to predators and potential antagonistic responses from resident tortoises. Perhaps the largest problem facing potential relocation efforts is the potential for the spread of diseases, especially upper respiratory tract disease (URTD), and genetic pollution.
Recently, URTD has been found to be a significant contributor to tortoise mortality, and this disease is widespread in the Mojave population. URTD is caused by a bacterium (Mycoplasma agassizi,), and it may be aggravated by simultaneous infections from other bacteria. URTD has been reported in a variety of tortoise species from around the world. It is likelythat it has been
FinalBiologicalAssessment 17 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 N spread through the wild populations by the release of infected, captive tortoises (Jacobson ] 1992). One of the main reasons for the emergency listing of Mojave Desert Tortoises in 1999 was the observed die-offs of populations due to URTD.
Groundwater withdrawal may cause the development of large fissures (Koehn Dry Lake, Saltdale, California) which act as pit-fall traps that can capture tortoises. Tortoises can also be trapped in utilitytrenches. Railroad tracks fragment tortoise habitat and their movements may be constrained by train rails (Edwards et a!. 2004; USFWS 1994a).
Desert Tortoises in the Prolect Area
Generally within the project area, the Mojave Desert Tortoise occupies suitable habitat from the Delamar Lake south to the Harry Allen Substation. Areas of habitat are discussed in detail in Section 3.4 below. Results from recent surveys conducted for the Desert Tortoise specifically for the SWIP are presented in Section 3.5.
3.4 DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT
Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat
The USFWS designated Critical Habitat for the Mojave population of the Desert Tortoise on February 8, 1994. Critical Habitat identified specific areas in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah that are crucial to the recovery of the species. The final rule for the designation identified four recovery units, totaling 1.2 million acres in Nevada. The project is located within the J Northeastern Mojave Desert Recovery Unit, in the Mormon Mesa Critical Habitat Unit as established in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan.
The primary constituent elements of habitat are typically found in non-urbanized areas on BLM land. Designated Critical Habitat focuses on important primary constituent elements within each unit. These are based on what the tortoises’ biological needs are, and how they willcontribute to their recovery. Examples are improvements in the distribution, population numbers, viability,and reproduction of the species. Activities that may disturb or destroy any of the primary constituent elements of nesting, foraging, sheltering, dispersal, and gene flow could adversely modify the tortoise’s habitat and its abilityto sustain itself (USFWS 1994b).
Designating Critical Habitat offers additional protection through Section 7 of the ESA. It provides regulatory protection and helps retain options until long-term plans are developed and implemented (USFWS 1994b). The State of Nevada and BLM have established additional protection to individual tortoises and/or tortoise habitat. The Desert Tortoise has been identified as a protected species by the State of Nevada under Section 501.110.1(d) of the Nevada Revised Statutes. In addition, the BLM has established several ACECs to provide the appropriate level of protection to the Desert Tortoise (see below). Many times, the specific locations of tortoises overlap the areas that are designated as Critical Habitat by USFWS.
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 18 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 BLM Tortoise Management
In November 1988, the ELM issued a management plan, entitled the Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on the Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan (BLM 1988), which outlines how the agency will manage for the Desert Tortoise. The ELM categorizes tortoise habitat according to four criteria: (1) importance of habitat to maintaining viable populations, (2) resolvability of conflicts, (3) tortoise density, and (4) population trend (increasing, stable, or decreasing) (ELM 1988). A description of the management goals and criteria for defining three categories (I, II, or III) of Habitat Areas is presented in Table 1. The SWIP alignment traverses Desert Tortoise Habitat categories I, II,and II.
TABLEI GOALSANDCRITERIAFORTHREECATEGOR!ESOF DESERTTORTOISEHABITATAREAS Category I Habitat Areas Category IIHabitat Areas Category Ill Habitat Areas Category Maintain stable, viable Maintain stable, viable Limitdeclines of tortoise habitat Goals populations and protect populations and halt further and population to the extent existing tortoise habitat declines in tortoise habitat possible by mitigating impacts. values; increase populations, values. where possible. Criterion 1 Habitat Area essential to Habitat Area may be essential Habitat Area not essential to maintenance of large, viable to maintenance of viable maintenance of viable populations. populations, populations. Criterion 2 Conflicts resolvable Most conflicts resolvable Most conflicts not resolvable. Criterion 3 Medium to high density or Medium to high density Low to medium density not low density contiguous with contiguous with medium or contiguous with medium or high medium or high density. high density. density. Criterion 4 Increasing, stable, or Stable or decreasing Stable or decreasing decreasing population. population. population. Criteria are ranked by importance to the categorization process, with Criterion 1 being the most important.
Category I habitat includes ACEC and designated Critical Habitat. Category IIgenerally includes moderate to high density habitat that is not included in Category I, and Category IIIis generally habitat with low to very low tortoise population density.
BLM and Other Management Plans
In Nevada, the majority of the Desert Tortoise habitat is on ELM land and is managed by the BLMunder the amended Clark County Management Framework Plan (2005) and the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment (2000). The Clark County Plan provides direction for comprehensive land use planning in Clark County, as required by the Clark County Growth Management Act. Due to high tortoise densities in the Coyote Spring Valley, this specific area has been designated as a Tortoise Management Area in the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for Clark County. The BLM has adopted a conservation strategy in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit based upon the establishment of Desert Tortoise ACECs. Specifically, the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP) has committed to managing land for the Desert Tortoise in the Coyote Springs area through the establishment of the Coyote Springs Desert Tortoise ACEC. Similarly, the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment (ELM 2000) established the Kane Springs ACEC. As illustrated in Figure 2, the proposed transmission line crosses a portion of the Coyote Springs (Clark County) ACEC. The Mormon Mesa ACEC (portions of Lincoln and Clark Counties) is located to the east of the project and the Desert
Final Biological Assessment 19 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 National Wildlife Range is to the west. The Clark County Management Framework Plan, Short- term Habitat Conservation Plan, the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment, and the RMPs for the ELMprovide protection to the Desert Tortoise in the project area.
Projects that are consistent with land management recommendations identified in the Clark County Management Framework Plan, Short-term Habitat Conservation Plan, the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment, and the RMPs for the ELMand the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan will not likely result in the adverse modification of Critical Habitat. Adherence to the mitigation measures that are outlined in this BA and additional measures identified by the USFWS in the EQ willensure that this project is consistent with these recommendations.
Designated Critical Habitat Within the Prolect Area
The project traverses approximately 65 miles of Desert Tortoise habitat between an area south of the Delamar Lake to Harry Allen Substation. Of this, approximately 53.2 miles of this project will fall within Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat (see Figure 2). The transmission line corridor enters Critical Habitat south of the Pahranagat Valley. This area is generally at the northern limit of the tortoise’s distribution, where tortoise density is very low (0 to 10 tortoises per square mile). Tortoise densities within the designated Critical Habitat, within the Project Area, range from low to very high (140+ tortoises per square mile).
Where the transmission line continues south along Highway 93 through Coyote Spring Valley it is located wholly within designated Critical Habitat, with the exception of a small amount of land - west of Highway 93 and the Kane Springs Road (see Figure 2). Surveys conducted in the 1990s ] indicated relatively high tortoise population density (45 to 140+ tortoises per square mile) in portions of the Coyote Spring Valley. The habitat was generally considered to be in good condition in this area. As the project enters Dry Lake Valley at Structure 953 it traverses lands where population densities are very low to low (0 to 45 tortoises per square mile).
In portions of this area, the project alignment in Critical Habitat occurs near existing paved roadways (Highway 93), where typically tortoise numbers are greatly reduced, so population densities are likely to be lower than in adjacent, relatively undisturbed, outlaying areas. The distance between Highway 93 and the project centerline varies from 0 to approximately 1 mile in this area, and for approximately 23 miles, the distance of separation of the centerline from the highway is ,4 mile or less.
3.5 RESULTS OF THE 2006 DESERT TORTOISE SURVEYS
Introduction and Methods
On January 30, 2006, a meeting was held at the BLM/USFWS building in Las Vegas, Nevada, to discuss key biological issues associated with the project and specifically the protocol for Desert Tortoise surveys. Attending the meeting were biologists from EPG, the USFWS, Las Vegas and Ely offices of the BLM, and from NDOW. At the meeting it was determined that Desert Tortoise surveys along the proposed SWIP tight-of-way would be in the form of
Final BiologicalAssessment 20 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 of of the the live and EPG point 2007 along of cover. on below. minute a tortoise agreed- impacts visibility transect origin and burrows. to nine 7.5 of quadrangle July2, in the the presence fences, cloud in on intervals range, human the and observed point described were Tortoises recording of USGS on found size mile carcasses, to Substation the percent Live unit, plotted and both 2.5 campsites, 2 data were TRIANGLE species Type implemented minute and — — — — — — — — — — — — and field, at Allen rings, Scat Scat Scat particle Tracks and Burrow Burrow ON Carcass Carcass Examples addition system 7.5 Sign the Table soil shells, In animal thereof Harry Scats, In in LaRue, located spaced collecting onto miles. transect the type, and Ed sign courtship line. recorded. was 2006 firearm 65 or temperature, OBSERVED Burrows, positioning transect. Mr. drawn from plant same a triangle, also 2 JULY tracks, day, transects, all and recorded. summarized was on substrate the IN 22 global transect of of 29 garbage, were Tortoises are on THEREOF 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 transmission of were 13 TABLE scats, completed Sign each time approximately equilateral Vaughn Corrected the both be SIGN sign landform, of total records centerline tracks, handheld walked. of transect of a surveys on encountered work, a TRANSECTS slope, AND Mercy burrows, kept would the 1.5-mile were trails, each project field Sign a distance Ms. 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 using 16 walked location also a of the from the recorded aspect, encountered, along tortoise Total whenever roads, the to to TORTOISE observations transect They Transects of Lake, of were dirt 32 recorded were results biologists, No. Prior biologists of Portion impacts relation surface), consisting also and recorded 1 4 9 5 6 7 miles 2 3 8 DESERT 10 11 12 16 17 18 was 13 14 19 15 Assessment 20 the The sign. two in illustrating protocol. total Delamar centerline. a each Data of 43.5 tortoises dog were Transect human paved ground Southern 2006, Observations Tortoises. maps of survey — transect live Biological south the project transects. July total Existing Results Final (of Otherwise include Desert USGS maps. domestic SWIP configuration A 29 Two upon each observations, transects. In tortoises the transects, just - TABLE2 DESERT TORTOISE AND SIGN THEREOF OBSERVED ON TRIANGLE T9ANSECTS INJULY 2006 Corrected Transect No. Total Sign Sign Sign Type 21 3 1 Scat, Carcass, Burrow 22 0 0 — 23 1 1 Burrow 24 0 0 — 25 0 0 — 26 0 0 — 27 0 0 — 28 0 0 — 29 0 0 —
The 2 live tortoises that were seen along with 18 other sign were associated with Transect 20, which was located approximately 19 miles north of State Route 168 between the project centerline and U.S. Highway 93, on the west side of Pahranagat Wash. This transect alone contained more than 50 percent of all sign observed. Transect 21 had a total of 3 sign, which when combined with the 20 sign on transect 20 accounts for 62.5 percent of all sign observed. Transect 6 had 5 total sign and transect 15 had 2 total sign, all other transects with sign had only 1 each.
Total corrected sign for all transects was 25. Total corrected sign is calculated on each transect to avoid inflating sign inventories. For example, one tortoise in a burrow is corrected to be one sign as opposed to two (i.e., one tortoise and one burrow = two total sign), with the assumption that the tortoise in the burrow is actually associated with that burrow and vice versa.
Final Biological Assessment 23 EPG SWIP— Southern Portion July 2, 2007 SECTION 4.0 UNMITIGATEDIMPACTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Direct impacts to a species’ habitat can result from ground-disturbing activities, particularly the construction of new access roads to tower sites or new roads to maintain transmission lines. Indirect impacts are those that result from construction and maintenance activities and may increase public access to an area. Both direct and indirect impacts can be considered unmitigated or initial impacts. Indirect impacts are impacts caused by a project that are foreseeable and often occur later in time or space. Mitigation planning is designed to address direct and indirect impacts, thereby reducing the overall residual impacts to special status species and their habitats.
Ground disturbance and habitat loss from access roads and tower footings are considered long- term impacts, that is, persisting for more than 10 years. Short-term impacts result from activities associated with the construction of towers, at wire-pulling and wire-splicing sites, construction yards, and at concrete batch plants.
The following sections discuss direct and indirect impacts to the Bald Eagle, Southwestern WillowFlycatcher, and Mojave Desert Tortoise.
4.2 BALD EAGLE
Direct Impacts
There is a slight potential for the mortality of individuals from collisions with the transmission line and associated structures. Generally, the power lines most often responsible for raptor contacts and subsequent electrocutions are 69kV and less. Some raptors are large enough for phase-to- ground contacts on lines of these voltages, and large raptors are large enough for phase-to- phase contacts. For transmission lines with voltages higher than 69kV, the separation of the phase conductors is greater than the wingspan of a large bird, such as an eagle. The proposed transmission line would have a structural configuration of 500kV therefore it is unlikely to have an impact on wintering eagle populations in the project area.
Indirect Impacts
One documented Bald Eagle nesting site occurs in Nevada, in northern Elko County. This site is outside the project area.
There are three locations within the project area where impacts to wintering or migrating Bald Eagles could occur. These locations are in the White River Valley area, where the route crosses the Egan Range into Butte Valley, and in the Pahranagat National WildlifeRefuge area. Impacts in these locations would be based on the potential for increased public access that could have harmful effects on individual wintering Bald Eagles as a result of illegal shooting or harassment. The presence of the transmission line in areas where hunting perches are presently lacking
FinalBiologicalAssessment 24 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 may, on the other hand, be beneficial to individual eagles. There may also be some potential J long term collision hazard for Bald Eagles in the White River Valley and to Bald Eagles wintering and/or migrating through the Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge area. Long-term indirect impacts to Bald Eagles and their habitats from increased public access in the areas previously described are expected to be minimal.
4.3 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER Direct Impacts
Ground-disturbing activities from the construction of the proposed transmission line would have little to no effect on Southwestern Willow Flycatcher breeding habitat. The closest known breeding location for Southwestern Willow Flycatchers is at Lower Pahranagat Lake, in Lincoln County. The Lower Pahranagat Lake location is approximately 3 miles north and west of the Project centerline and is in totally different habitat. The project willcross the Pahranagat Wash approximately 1 mile downstream of Maynard Lake in an area that does not contain suitable habitat for the flycatcher. Other than Lower Pahranagat Lake, the closest suitable habitats exist along the Virgin River, Meadow Valley Wash, Muddy River, Las Vegas Wash, and the Colorado River system. The Virgin River is located approximately 25 miles southeast of the project; the Muddy River is located on the east side of Arrow Canyon Range; Meadow Valley Wash is approximately 6 miles east of the Project; Las Vegas Wash flows southeasterly through the Las Vegas Metroplex, approximately 18 miles south/southwest of the project area.
Indirect Impacts
Increased public access can have adverse effects on nesting Willow Flycatchers; however, there are no known nesting areas or nesting habitat within the area of the proposed route. Consequently, any increases in public access associated with the construction and operation of the SWIP should have no effect on the nesting habitat of this species.
4.4 DESERT TORTOISE (Mojave Population) Direct Impacts
Direct impacts to the Mojave Desert Tortoise are associated with project construction, during which time construction activities potentially could injure or killtortoises. Tortoises may also be harassed through removal from construction areas. Vehicles that stray from construction areas and roads may also crush Desert Tortoises above ground or in their burrows. There would be direct habitat loss from power line and access road construction. Feeding, breeding, and sheltering activities may be interrupted during construction.
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts to tortoises could result from increase in public access during and after transmission line construction. Impacts from increased public access could include further
FinalBiologicalAssessment 25 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July2, 2007 a in in of to an are the and and EPG as from 2007 Non been avian to on Raven ravens 2, Lincoln of off-road acres avoiding by has in engineers vandalism impacts permanent 78 51 water result 129 135 July operation harassment, from especially 142 Critical birds. roadway based from of while Hatchlings areas temporary returned in from young and and the project In Habitat and would the — 980s, the 1 I long-term being result in onto of with tortoises contingency mortality ravens. Desiqnation mortality the of Critical determined and application for reptiles, County. Habitat could result construction approximately temporary direct and construction tortoises The percent Habitat since were sites to Tortoises predation may Clark total the Critical 87 55 142 149 pet Tortoise conjunction indirect, table. (ACRES) Critical mortality during five in NON-CRITICAL due in a Non mammals, with potential this values Desert tortoises, Desert mainly project would in AREA perching infrastructure AND Desert of Tortoises. of BLM, Habitat adverse, changes of diseases. unwanted native 3 increased These attract Tortoises other designated Mojave of developed and threats, shown 26 provide Desert with associated for proposed more HABIT4T acres cause amount as and CRITICAL the collection and Critical to could TABLE in etc.) disturbance potential Desert in 129 variety The HABITAT greater counties. line, of USFWS a could for illegal tortoises to County. result potential WITHIN roads, structures Habitat by Tortoise estimates line mortality TORTOISE with take disturbance estimated wild can project. Lincoln increase The of permanent Clark activities. maintenance flexibility CRITICAL in the the access also the increased and Desert and/or and of Tortoise transmission vulnerable approximately greater for DESERT predation extent road resident injury. on of a of acres sites, the to disturbance Transmission Countv consultation Clark DISTURBANCE transmission Facilities them access effect and injury, allow expansion. 99 and Desert presents been construction during acres tortoises, and/or to the TORTOISE contingency Portion (tower both roads, to temporary infecting and type overall (Lincoln of Assessment ravens. Better of urban 231 leaving indirect reinitiate have for the vulnerable disturbance the order below, to like percent by to an of to In 5 crushing mortality and County Habitat County destruction, Southern DESERT disturbance facilities 3, Impacts impacts be in — Biological potentially suppressant Disturbance plus presence shooting. need date. Lincoln Direct Direct project Lincoln County Critical included Permanent disturbance estimate Final result ground-disturbing permanent response 4.5 Table SWIP Maintenance to the Total Total Temorarv predators particularly burrow dust populations would tortoises, habitat and The vehicles wild, J - ) - TABLE3 DISTURBANCE WITHIN CRITICAL AND NON-CRITICAL DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT AREA (ACRES) Facilities Habitat Desiqnation Non Critical Critical Clark County Temoorarv 79 160 Permanent 20 71 Total Disturbance (ClarkCounty}_ 99 231 Total olus 5 rercent continoencv 104 242
Grand Totals (Lincolnand ClarkCounty) 241 360 Grand Totals plus 5 percent contingency 253 377
Destruction or adversely modifying Critical Habitat diminishes its value, which is important for the survival and recovery of the Desert Tortoise. Project activities that disturb or remove habitat, in particular, the primary constituent elements within Critical Habitat units, could adversely modify them. Specific primary constituent elements that will be affected by this project include shrubs that willbe removed during access road construction. Shrubs provide cover for adult and juvenile tortoises, and burrows are often constructed under the canopy of creosote bushes or other shrubs. Some potential burrow habitat will be lost by access road construction, and compaction of soils on access roads will make them unavailable for burrowing. Mojave Desert Tortoises rely heavily on the spring annual plant community for food, and some species of spring annuals (e.g., Erodium cicutarium and Erodium texanum) may be enhanced by soil disturbance around tower sites. Tortoise prefer and derive greater nutritional benefit from native annual forage. Non-native forage species willmost likely increase following disturbance. Filaree J (Erodium cicutarium) is an exotic species that is frequently consumed by Desert Tortoises, although other spring annuals are preferred.
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts to Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat could result from increases in public access from new roads constructed for the project. These roads could allow for an increase in off-road vehicle use and public access resulting in a degradation of Critical Habitat, including crushing of native vegetation and areas potentially used for the construction of burrows. Increased public access could also facilitate the dispersal of seeds of noxious weeds such as Sahara mustard. Spread of species like Sahara mustard can seriously degrade Critical Habitat through significant competition with native species that provide forage for Desert Tortoises.
Final Biological Assessment 27 EPG SWIP— Southern Portion July2, 2007 -—,
SECTION 5.0 MITIGATIONPLANNING
Two types of mitigation measures were developed during the SWIP EIS process and included as conditions in the Record of Decision that approved the SWIP. These included generic mitigation and selectively committed mitigation measures.
Generic mitigation measures are those that apply to the project as a whole and are typically part of the project description. Selectively committed measures are applied on a case-by-case basis, in specific impact locations. Since the SWIP was approved in 1994, both generic and selectively committed measures have been revisited and revised as a result of several meetings with agency personnel. The overarching purpose of both sets of measures with respect to biological resources was to reduce impacts to biological resources, as well as special status species, resulting from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line, where possible. Generic and selective mitigation measures related to the avoidance and mitigation of impacts to species addressed in this BA are set forth in the following tables. These and other mitigation measures will be imposed through conditions in the COM Plan being developed by the BLM and Great Basin. During construction, these measures will be monitored by the Compliance Inspection Contractor (CIC) who will review the applicability of these measures and make final determinations regarding their implementation.
TABLE 4 GENERIC MITIGATIONMEASURES RELEVANT TO SPECIES ADDRESSED INTHIS BA Allconstruction vehicle movement outside the right-of-waywould normally be restricted to predesignated access, contractor acquired access, or public roads. The areal limitsof construction activities would normally be predetermined, with 2 activity restricted to and confined withinthose limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents would be applied to rocks or vegetation to indicate survey or construction activity limits. In construction areas where recontouring is not required, vegetation would be left in 3 place wherever possible and original contour would be maintained to avoid excessive root damage and allow for resprouting. In construction areas (e.g., marshalling yards, tower sites, spur roads from existing access roads) where ground disturbance is significant or where recontouring is 4 required, surface restoration would occur as required by the landowner or land management agency. The method of restoration would normally consist of returning disturbed areas back to their natural contour, reseeding (ifrequired), cross drains installed for erosion control, placing water bars in the road, and fillingditches. Prior to construction, all supervisory construction personnel would be instructed on the 8 protection of cultural and ecological resources. To assist in this effort, the construction contract would address: (a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities and plants and wildlife,including collection and removal; (b) the importance of these resources and the purpose and necessity of protecting them. Roads would be built as near as possible at right angles to the streams and washes. Culverts would be installed where necessary. Allconstruction and maintenance 13 activities shall be conducted in a manner that would minimize disturbance to vegetation, drainage channels, and intermittent or perennial streambanks. In addition, road construction would include dust-control measures during construction in sensitive areas. Only water or an alternative substance approved by BLMwillbe used as a dust
Final BiologicalAssessment 28 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 TABLE 4 GENERIC MITIGATIONMEASURES RELEVANT TO SPECIES ADDRESSED INTHIS BA suppressant. Allexisting roads would be left in a condition equal to or better than their condition prior to the construction of the transmission line. Towers willbe sited with a minimum distance of 200 feet from streams. Fences and gates would be repaired or replaced to their original predisturbed 15 condition as required by the landowner or the land management agency ifthey are damaged or destroyed by construction activities. Temporary gates would be installed only with the permission o the landowner or the land management agency; and would be restored to its oriqinal predisturbed condition followinq construction. Mitigation measures that willbe developed during the consultation period under 19 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (1974) willbe adhered to as specified in the Biolooical Ooinion of the USFWS. Hazardous materials shall not be drained onto the ground or into streams or drainage 20 areas. Totally enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash. Allconstruction waste including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials shall be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials. Pre-construction surveys for plants and wildlifespecies, designated as sensitive or of 21 concern willbe conducted in areas of known occurrence or habitat, including noxious weed surveys as stipulated by the land-administering agency during the development of the COM Plan once the transmission line centerline, access roads, and tower sites have been located and staked in the field.
TABLE 5 SELECTIVE MITIGATIONMEASURES RELEVANT TO SPECIES ADDRESSED INTHIS BA No widening or upgrading of existing access roads would be undertaken in the area of j construction and operation, except for repairs necessary to make roads passable, where soils and vegetation are very sensitive to disturbance. The alignment of any new access roads or overland route would follow the designated 3 area’s landform contours where possible, providing that such alignment does not additionally impact resource values. This would minimize ground disturbance and/or reduce scarring (visual contrast). Allnew access roads not required for maintenance would be permanently closed using the most effective and least environmentally damaging methods appropriate to 4 that area with concurrence of the landowner or land manager (e.g., stock piling and replacing topsoil, seeding, or rock replacement). This would limitnew or improved accessibility into the area. In designated areas, structures would be placed so as to avoid sensitive features such 6 as, but not limited to, riparian areas, water courses, and cultural sites, and/or to allow conductors to clearly span the features, within limits of standard tower design. This would minimize amount of sensitive feature disturbed and/or reduce visual contrast. With the exception of emergency repair situations, right-of-way construction, restoration, maintenance, and termination activities in designated areas would be modified or discontinued during sensitive periods (e.g., nesting and breeding periods) for candidate, proposed threatened and endangered, or other sensitive animal species. Sensitive periods, species affected, and areas of concern would be approved in advance of construction or maintenance by the authorized officer.
Final Biological Assessment 29 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 TABLE 5 SELECTIVE MITIGATIONMEASURES RELEVANTTO SPECIES ADDRESSED INTHIS BA 13 Construction and/or post-construction monitoring,and treatment in selective areas will occur in accordance withSection 106 Compliance (see Generic MitigationMeasure 9), Paleontological Resources (see Generic MitigationMeasure 18), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (See Generic Measure 19), or as specified by the land management agency and state or county authority. Mitigationmeasures identifiedwill be included inthe Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Plan.
5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE
Mitigation measures designed specifically to reduce impacts to the Desert Tortoise have been developed to assist in the formal consultation process. These measures would be applied through conditions in the COM Plan to avoid and minimize impacts to the tortoise. The measures include those developed in connection with the SWIP EIS and Record of Decision, the SWIP BC (March 23, 1994), and through recent discussion with the USFWS and BLM. In order to lessen or avoid adverse modification to Desert Tortoises and preclude exceeding take limits defined in the BC, the following mitigation measures would be applicable.
Measures that would minimize mortality or injury of Desert Tortoises due to construction or maintenance activities and operation of heavy equipment:
1. If blasting is necessary, all tortoises located within 100 feet of the blast site will be removed and temporarily relocated in accordance with Desert Tortoise handling protocol, prior to blasting. Prior to any blasting, all tortoise burrows or coversites within a 200-foot radius of the blast site will be located and the entrances carefully stuffed with crumpled newspaper or other material approved by BLM and USFWS. After blasting is completed, all burrows and coversites willbe inspected for damage, and stuffing material will be removed. If a burrow or coversite has collapsed and there is a possibility that it could be occupied, it will be excavated to ensure that no tortoises have been buried and are in danger of suffocation.
2. With the exception of emergency repair situations, maintenance and termination activities in areas of Critical Habitat will be modified or discontinued during sensitive periods (March 1 through October 31), or as identified by BLM
3. During the tortoise activity period, March 1 through October 31, tortoise biologists shall be present during all construction, and maintenance (e.g., emergency repairs) activities where one or more pieces of heavy construction equipment are being used.
4. All movement of construction vehicles outside of the right-of-way will be restricted to pre designated access, contractor-acquired access, or public roads.
5. The limits of construction will be predetermined, with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or permanent discoloring agents will be applied to rocks or vegetation to indicate survey or construction activity limits.
Final BiologicalAssessment 30 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 6. Hazardous materials shall not be drained onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas. Total enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash. Allconstruction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials, shall be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials.
7. Prior to construction, a plan establishing handling, holding, and relocation procedures for tortoises will be developed. The plan will be developed in consultation with BLM and USFWS and will be approved by those agencies. The plan will include, at a minimum: (a) a protocol for moving tortoises above ground in construction areas; (b) a protocol for excavating and relocating tortoises found in burrows in areas flagged for disturbance; and (c) the techniques for constructing artificial burrows for relocated tortoises. The plan would account for the time of year and temperature ranges. The purpose for deferring the development of the plan is to ensure the use of the most current and effective techniques available at the time of construction.
8. Construction and maintenance vehicles will not exceed a speed of 25 miles per hour in tortoise habitat, except where posted otherwise (e.g., US 93).
9. All construction sites and access roads shall be clearly marked or flagged at the outer limits prior to the onset of any surface-disturbing activity. Allpersonnel shall be informed that their activities must be confined within the marked or flagged areas.
10. Construction sites and access roads shall be surveyed by qualified tortoise biologists no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction. Surveys shall provide 100 percent coverage of the construction area. All Desert Tortoise burrows located will be conspicuously flagged or marked. All Desert Tortoise burrows, and other species’ burrows that may be used by Desert Tortoises, will be examined to determine the occupancy of each burrow by tortoises, using a fiber-optic scope, if necessary.
11. From November 1 through February 28, environmental monitors (in place of Desert Tortoise biologists) willbe on site during all phases of transmission line construction, to ensure that all construction vehicles and heavy equipment remain within the boundaries of the marked construction zone. If necessary, a qualified Desert Tortoise biologist will be brought on site to excavate any tortoise burrow in harms way.
12. Desert Tortoises and eggs found within construction sites will be removed by qualified Desert Tortoise biologists, in accordance with the most current protocols identified by the ELMand USFWS. Desert Tortoises removed from the project sites will be released into undisturbed habitat within 1,000 feet of the collection site.
Any Desert Tortoise removed from construction sites shall be placed in the shade of a shrub or in a natural, unoccupied burrow similar to the one in which it was found or in an artificial burrow, following the most current protocol approved by the ELM and USFWS. Desert Tortoises shall not be placed on lands outside the administration of the federal government without the written permission of the landowner. Desert Tortoises shall be purposely moved only by qualified tortoise biologists, solely for the purpose of moving them out of harm’s way.
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 31 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 or
of
be
the
the
the
area
their
with
open
soils post-
EPG
area,
2007 in
under
place
raven-
and/or Critical
impact
will
to
2,
in
areas the
left
as
in
and
replacing
using
as
excessive
area,
not
prevent
designated
July
where left
check
compaction,
accessibility
and
2),
well
upgrading
nests
to
and
to that
be
the
as placed
damage
soil
or does avoid
closed
to
construction
will
to
as
disturbance
Figure
and
raven
and
construction activities:
foundations)
designated operation
follow
improved
installed
required
to
equipment
of
(see
such
i.e., or
project
will
stockpiling f
widening and
be
be alignment
ground
areas
unattended,
workers appropriate
permanently
no
vegetation
new
drawn will
any
in will
Tortoises
ACEC
maintained,
left
such
(e.g.,
be
habitat,
routes
in removal
is maintenance
limit
be
construction that will
or method
habitat
minimize
ravens
utilized Desert
and
fencing construction
construction
will
required,
all
Springs
passable,
by
of
construction
Tortoise
of be would
vehicle
manager
overland
line
not
permitted a
by
proof
or
should holes.
is
will provided
Tortoise
area roads
be
Ravens
begins.
Coyote
land
32
includes
time
Desert
construction
daily
maintenance
tortoises
contouring
closures
or the
open
the
of
roads
areas: disturbance.
any
shall
tortoise
for
on
in
Desert This make
harassment
in
from to
activity
the
possible,
transmission
deterrents
to
alignments
These Common
168
pets
and
resprouting.
to original
recontouring removed
into
access
within
away.
and/or
no
checked required
be
for
where
for
landowner
the
perch
destruction
resulting environmentally-damaging
predation
sensitive
construction
new
Route
be
These
injury, undertaken
falling where not
will
related
the
to
driving
construction allow and
necessary
with
very
leashed.
be
least
area.
any
of
covered,
to
State
or contours
items
any
roads areas
holes
of
right-of-way are replacement). should
will
minimize minimize
and
be
this
of
coversites,
monitoring
and
before
tortoises
vegetation,
brought
mortality,
in
repairs
the
resources.
food
of
will possible,
rock
and
structures
before
Portion
roads
on
would
would
south
for
access area.
scarring.
confined
or
dogs
landform
vehicles Assessment and
containers.
effective
vehicle
alignment
excavated
damage
vegetation
concurrence
crushed the
prevent
that
that
new
construction
or
H-frame possibility under Habitat morning overnight Anyone undertaken Any their burrows construction unless
In proof Trash To root Except
existing and area’s wherever reduce additional most The
All Southern the into topsoil —
Biological
unleashed
13. 14.
Measures 15. 16. 17. by
erosion, 18.
Measures 19.
20.
21.
Final
SWIP 22. Within Desert Tortoise habitat, a biologist willbe assigned to the pre-construction survey team(s). The biologist willbe responsible for ensuring that the placement of new access routes, spur roads, and tower sites will affect as few tortoise burrows as possible. The alignment of access and spur roads will be as direct as possible, to minimize habitat disturbance and minimize the destruction of tortoise burrows. Other work areas (e.g., splicing, tensioning, pulling, and batch sites) will be surveyed by a biologist as construction proceeds. Potential work areas will be flagged several days prior to construction for review by a biologist. To the extent possible, these sites willbe located in previously disturbed areas.
23. Overnight parking and storage of equipment will be in previously disturbed areas (i.e., lacking vegetation). These areas will also be designated by the pre-construction survey team. If previously disturbed areas are not available, these activities will be restricted to the right-of-way and willbe cleared of tortoises by the on-site biologist prior to use.
24. Within Desert Tortoise habitat, construction and maintenance workers will strictly limit their activities and vehicles to construction areas and routes of travel that have been identified and/or flagged to eliminate adverse impacts to Desert Tortoises and their habitat. Aside from these areas, workers may not drive cross-country, even within the right-of-way. Allworkers will be instructed that their activities are restricted to previously identified, flagged or cleared areas.
25. To the extent possible, access to tower sites, and at splicing and tensioning sites will occur by overland travel and crushing of vegetation (i.e., no blading of such sites will occur). The CIC will ensure that blading is conducted only where necessary. Due to construction constraints resulting from equipment size and personnel safety, blading would be needed at most spur roads and tower sites.
26. In areas where restoration is required, reseeding will occur through the use of native plant species. Reclamation and monitoring requirements and practices will be approved by the BLM.
27. Herbicides willnot be used as a part of this project.
Measures that would be taken to ensure compliance with measures contained within the Biological Opinion:
28. The project proponent will designate a CIC, who will be responsible for overseeing compliance with protective stipulations for the Desert Tortoise and for coordinating compliance with the BLM.The CIC willhave the authority to halt activities of construction equipment that may be in violation of the stipulations.
29. All construction and maintenance workers will participate in a tortoise-education program. The program willbe developed by the project proponent prior to the beginning of construction. The program will be submitted to the USFWS for review and approval prior to implementation. The program will include, at a minimum, the following topics: (a) the occurrence of Desert Tortoises; (b) the sensitivity of the species to human activities; (c) legal protection for Desert Tortoises; (d) penalties for violations of federal
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 33 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 and state laws; (e) general tortoise activity patterns; (f) reporting requirements; (g) measures to protect tortoises; and (h) personal measures employees can take to promote the conservation of Desert Tortoises.
30. The USFWS and BLM will be notified within three days of any tortoise death or injury caused by project activities. Notification will include the date, time, circumstances, and locations of any injury or death. Dead animals may be marked and left on-site. Injured animals will be transported to a qualified veterinarian. The USFWS willfurnish direction on the final disposition of tortoises taken to a veterinarian.
31. The CIC and on-site biologist willprepare a report for the BLMand USFWS no later than 90 days after completion of construction within Desert Tortoise habitat. The report will document the effectiveness of the tortoise mitigation measures, the number of tortoises excavated from burrows, and the number of tortoises moved from construction sites. The report will make recommendations for modifying or refining the stipulations, to enhance benefits to the tortoise or to reduce needless hardship on the project proponent. The report will include an estimate of the actual acreage of habitat disturbance caused by crushing and blading versus the estimates prior to construction.
32. Offsite mitigation fees collected for Lincoln and Clark counties shall be deposited in interest-bearing escrow accounts to be established by the project proponent in each county. Upon conclusion of the rehabilitation evaluation, which shall occur no later than seven years after the reclamation project work is completed, the project proponent shall receive a refund of the offsite mitigation fees equal to the percentage in which the rehabilitation is successful.
FinalBiologicalAssessment 34 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July2, 2007 SECTION 6.0 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS
61 INTRODUCTION
Cumulative effects can occur from individually minor but collectively significant actions that take place over time. Cumulative impacts can occur as a result of the incremental impacts of other past, present and other reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects include future non-federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur in the project area addressed by this BA. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the project (including the development of other infrastructure projects in the BLMdesignated utility corridor) are not considered as cumulative effects because they willrequire separate consultation with the USFWS.
6.2 BALD EAGLE AND SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER
A vast majority of the lands within the general project area are managed by the BLM, including the designated utilitycorridor. At this time no projects on non-federal lands have been identified that could have cumulative effects on the Bald Eagle and Southwestern WillowFlycatcher.
6.3 DESERT TORTOISE MOJAVE POPULATION
Potential cumulative impacts to the Mojave Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat are associated with urban/suburban development and increased human presence (including recreational activities in tortoise habitat).
Continued expansion of the human population in the Las Vegas area and Clark County is resulting in the removal of large tracts of land suitable for Desert Tortoise occupancy. In relationship to this project in particular, the newly proposed Coyote Springs development would be located to the east of US 93, on private lands, in an area of excellent quality tortoise habitat currently possessing high-density populations. The tortoises currently living there will be effectively removed from the southern Nevada tortoise gene pool, and all of the currently existing habitat willbe destroyed and displaced by development. Clark County has developed a long-term Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for an incidental take permit, pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The plan addresses take of Desert Tortoises and their habitats from future development projects on all non-federal and federal lands likelyto be transferred to non-federal ownership during the permit period within Clark County and proposes mitigation to minimize such impacts that must be addressed by any new development, such as the Coyote Springs development. Lands to which the permit applies must be located outside of Intensively Managed Areas and Less Intensively Managed Areas as defined in the Clark County HCP.
Additional opportunities for access into the area of the SWIP alignment by residents of the Coyote Springs development could result from the construction of new access roads required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line. This could potentially result in tortoise mortality from shooting, individuals collected for pets, individuals killed by vehicles, and those killed by ingestion of foreign materials (e.g., plastics). Better access for people also can result in more unwanted pet tortoises being returned to the wild, potentially
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 35 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 be
EPG
2007
could
2,
may
potential
July
the
Springs
ravens
and
Coyote
of
addition,
In
disturbance
vicinity
the
species.
in
Additional
weed
36
landscape
noxious
diseases.
desert
more
with
or
the
one
into
of
tortoises
areas.
people
wild
spread
Portion
more
the
Assessment
of
human-use
in
resident
to
Southern —
result
Biological
introduction also infecting attracted
Final
SWIP
J SECTION 7.0 HABITAT COMPENSATION FOR THE DESERT TORTOISE
The objective of habitat compensation is to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat quality for the tortoise. The ultimate objective of such compensation is to ensure that the number and viability of regional populations is not diminished. Compensation for the loss of habitat is required by applicable endangered species laws, regulations, and agency policies, including BLMDesert Tortoise protection policies, and willbe applied to the SWIP.
Suitable compensation options include the following:
• Contribution to a tortoise holding or research facility • Acquisition of off-site land for a tortoise preserve • Contribution to the research study of a problem affecting tortoises. Examples might include effects of raven predation or livestock grazing on tortoise populations.
The decision regarding the distribution and appropriate use of mitigation remuneration for the disturbance of Desert Tortoise habitat will be determined through consultations between the USFWS and BLMand willbe included in the BC. The actual per acre rate of remuneration will also be determined through consultation between the BLMand USFWS and willbe included in the SWIP BC. Two separate compensation accounts will be established, one in Clark County and one in Lincoln County.
Table 3, in Section 4.5 (Disturbance Within Critical and Non-Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat Areas) presents the estimated amount of potential temporary and permanent disturbance for both Clark and Lincoln counties. These values were determined based on an estimate of the type and extent of disturbance associated with the construction and operation of project facilities (tower sites, access roads, etc.) developed in conjunction with project engineers to date. As previously stated in Section 4.5, in order to allow for flexibility for potential changes during construction while avoiding the need to reinitiate consultation with USFWS and BLM, a five percent contingency has been included to the overall disturbance estimates as shown in Table 3.
FinalBiologicalAssessment 37 EPG SWIP— Southern Portion July 2, 2007 SECTION 8.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS - 8.1 BALD EAGLE ( f1 /A fr The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Bald Eagle. No known nesting Bald Eagles are located in the project area along the proposed route. Increased public access in areas of dispersal or migration habitat could result in minor impacts to occasional migrating/dispersing individuals. In areas where wintering eagles may be present, increased public access could result in random, very low mortality to the birds, from illegal hunting or shooting. The presence of the proposed transmission line could increase the possibility of mortalities to Bald Eagles resulting from collisions with the line; however, the possibility is so remote that it likely would not affect local or regional population numbers. The towers could result in a beneficial effect, by providing additional perch sites for the eagles, especially in areas where no other structures are available. Impacts within Bald Eagle wintering habitat resulting from ground disturbance and increased public access all are expected to be low due to the minimal amount of habitat present and the application of mitigation measures.
8.2 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER
The project may affect, but is not likelyto adversely affect, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Impacts to Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat resulting from ground disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed transmission line are low. Any impacts to Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat involve impacts to dispersal or migration habitat, since ) no potential breeding habitat for this species will be affected by the project’s construction and operation.
The most sensitive area for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is probably the Pahranagat Wash crossing. This is true simply because the species may use the wash and associated xeroriparian vegetation as a movement corridor during migration. Given that the wash itself will be spanned, the project is not likelyto adversely affect this species.
8.3 MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE
The project may affect the Desert Tortoise and is likelyto adversely affect the Desert Tortoise.
The mitigation measures previously recommended will be effective of reducing impacts to the Desert Tortoise and its habitat. Generic and selective mitigation measures as described in Section 5 of this BA will reduce ground disturbance. All measures restricting ground disturbing activity also will be effective at reducing the potential for incidental take during construction. Indirect impacts associated with the potential for increased public (recreation) access that may affect the Desert Tortoise will be reduced by controlling access in key locations to the right-of way. Additional key mitigation measures developed specifically for the Mojave Desert Tortoise identified in Section 5 include, but are not limited to, educational programs, parking and storing equipment in previously disturbed areas, following pre-construction procedures for handling,
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 38 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 holding, and relocating tortoises, and not exceeding speed limits of 25 miles per hour from J March 1 through November 1. Long-term adverse impacts to young tortoises from raven predation as a result of construction activities is not anticipated. Although ravens are attracted to transmission lines for perching, the data showing the proportional relationship between raven numbers and available perch sites in any given area has not been shown. However, as a part of the additional recommended mitigation measures, H-frame structures with perch deterrents will be utilized in areas designated as Critical Habitat south of State Routel68 in the Coyote Springs ACEC (see Figure 2), and post-construction monitoring for Common Ravens will be undertaken in this area. Should it be determined that Common Ravens are actually nesting on H-frame structures, the USFWS and USDA Wildlife Services will be consulted to determine legality and efficacy of removing nests.
8.4 DESERT TORTOISE CRITICAL HABITAT
The project is likely to adversely affect Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. Impacts will include removal of primary constituent elements of Critical Habitat, including shrubs and areas that potentially could be used for the construction of burrows, particularly associated with the development of access roads and the potential for increased access that may cause additional disturbance. These adverse affects will be at least partially ameliorated by mitigation measures identified in Section 5 of this BA and through off-site mitigation compensation, as described in Section 7 of this BA.
FinalBiologicalAssessment 39 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July2, 2007 _____
SECTION 9.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th Edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pp.
Applegate, L.H. 1981. Hydraulic effects of vegetation changes along the Santa Cruz River near Tumacacori, Arizona. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2001. Gopherus agassizli. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 11 pp.
Audubon, J.J. 1828. Birds of America (folio). London.
Averill-Murray, R.C., A.P. Woodman and J.M. Howland. 2002b. Population Ecology of the Sonoran Desert Tortoise in Arizona. Pages 109 — 134 in The Sonoran Desert Tortoise: Natural History, Biology, and Conservation, T.R. Van Devender, ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Bent, A.C. 1942. Life Histories of North American flycatchers, Larks, Swallows, and Their Allies. Smithsonian Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 179. (Dover Edition, 1963. Dover Publications, New York. 555 p. + plates).
Berry, K.H. and P. Medica. 1995. Desert Tortoises in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts. Pages 135—137 in Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems, E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran and M.J. Mac, eds. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington.
Blythe, A.K., D.E. Swann, R.J. SteidI and E.W. Stitt. 2004. Movement Patterns of Translocated Desert Tortoises. Page(s) 80-80 in The Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council, D.K. Duncan, G. Stewart, T.B. Egan, M. Tuegel and D. Pond, editors. The 28th Annual Meeting and Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council; February 21-23, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Wrightwood, California: Desert Tortoise Council, Inc. 183 pp
Bramble, D.M. 1971. Functional Morphology, Evolution, and Paleontology of Gopher Tortoises. PhD Dissertation. U.C. Berkeley.
Brooker, M.P. 1985. The Ecological Effects of Channelization. Geographical Journal 151:63-69.
Brown, D.E. Ed. 7994. Biotic Communities, Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 342 pp.
1994. 122.4 Great Basin Conifer Woodland. pp 52-57 in D.E. Brown, Ed. Biotic Communities Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 342 pp
FinalBiologicalAssessment 40 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 _____
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1988. Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on the Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 23 pp.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1989. Environmental Assessment for Selected Control of the Common Raven to Reduce Desert Tortoise Predation in the Mojave Desert, California. Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California.
Clark County, 2005. The 20 Year Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, 2003 — 2023, Revised December, 2005.
Corn, P.S. 1994. Recent Trends of Desert Tortoise Populations in the Mojave Desert. Pages 85 — 93 in Biology of North American Tortoises, R.B. Bury and D.J. Germano, eds. Fish and WildlifeResearch Publication #13.
Crumley, C.R. 1994. Phylogenetic systematics of North American Tortoises (Genus Gopherus): Evidence for their Classification. Pages 7 — 32 in Biology of North American Tortoises, R.B. Bury and D.J. Germano, eds. Fish and Wildlife Research Publication #13.
Dahi, I.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WildlifeService, Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
Edwards, T., E.W. Still, C.R. Schwalbe and D.E. Swann. 2004. Gopherus agassizll (Desert Tortoise). Movement. Herpetological Review. 34 (1)57.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.5. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.
1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York. 785 pp.
Ernst, C.H., J.E. Lovich and R.W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Esque, T.C. and E.L. Peters. 1994. Ingestion of Bones, Stones, and Soil by Desert Tortoises. Pages 105-111 in Biology of North American Tortoises, R.B. Bury and D.J. Germano, eds. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and WildlifeResearch Publication 13.
Farrell, J.P. 1989. Natural History Observations of Raven Behavior and Predation on Desert Tortoises. Proceedings of the Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council 1989.
Fenner, P., W.W. Brady and D.R. Patton. 1985. Effects of Regulated Water Flows on Regeneration of Fremont Cottonwood. Journal of Range Management 38(2): 135-138.
Germano, D.J., R.B. Bury, T.C. Esque, T.H. Fritts and P.A. Medica. 1994. Range and Habitats of the Desert Tortoise. Pages 73 - 84 in Biology of North American Tortoises, R.B. Bury and D.J. Germano, eds. Fish and Wildlife Research Publication #13.
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 41 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBO), 2006. Willow Flycatcher. Internet website available on http://www.gbbo.org. Accessed: March 12, 2006.
Grubb, T.G. 1995. Food Habits of Bald Eagles Breeding in the Arizona Desert. Wilson Bulletin 107:258-274.
Grubb, T.G. and C.E. Kennedy. 1982. Bald Eagle Winter Habitat on Southwestern National Forests. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-237.
Harrison, H.H. 1979. A Field Guide to Western Birds’Nests. Houghton MifflinCompany, Boston. 279 pp.
Heinzenknecht, G.B. and J.R. Paterson. 1978. Effects of Large Dams and Reservoirs on Wildlife Habitat. pp. 101-147 in Chadwick, W.L. (chairman) Environmental Effects of Large Dams. American Society of CivilEngineers, New York. 255 pp.
Hendricks, D.M. 1985. Arizona Soils. The University of Arizona, College of Agriculture, Tucson, Arizona. 244 pp.
Herron, G.B., D.A. Mortimore and M.S. Rawlings. 1985. Nevada Raptors. Their Biology and Management. Biological Bulletin No. 8. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. 113 pp.
Hiatt, H. and J. Boone. 2003. Clark County, Nevada: Species Account Manual. Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada. 218 pp.
Howland, J.M. and J.C. Rorabaugh. 2002. Conservation and Protection of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona. Pages 334 — 354 in The Sonoran Desert Tortoise: Natural History, Biology, and Conservation, T.R. Van Devender, ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hubbard, J.P. 1987. The Status of the Willow Flycatcher in New Mexico. Endangered Species Program, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 29 pp.
Hunt, W.G., D.E. Driscoll, E.W. Bianchi and R.E. Jackman. 1992. Ecology of Bald Eagles in Arizona. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Contract 6-CS-30-04470. BioSystems Analysis, Inc., Santa Cruz, California.
Jacobson, E. 1992. The Desert Tortoise and Upper Respiratory Tract Disease. A special report prepared for the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, Inc. Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee Internet site http://www.tortoise-tracks.org/publications/jacobson.html. Accessed January 17, 2002.
Jennings, W.B. 1997. Habitat Use and Food Preferences of the Desert Tortoise, Copherus agassizil, in the Western Mojave Desert and Impacts of Off-Road Vehicles.
Jones, F.L. and J.F. Cahlan. 1975. Water: a History of Las Vegas. Volume 1. Las Vegas Valley Water District, Las Vegas.
FinalBiologicalAssessment 42 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 ______
Lamb, T., J.C. Avice and J.W. Gibbons. 1989. Phylogeographical Patterns in Mitochondrial DNA of the Desert Tortoise (Xerobates agassizi,), and Evolutionary Relationships Among the J North American Gopher Tortoises. Evolution 43: 76—87.
Lawler, H.E. No date. A Natural History of the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus [Xerobates] agassizil. International BioPark Internet site http://www.biopark.org/Destortl. html. Accessed: January 17, 2002.
Lovich, J. 1999. Synopsis of Conservation Information on the Desert Tortoise. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center Internet site http://www.werc.usgs.gov/cc/ synopsis.htm. Accessed: January 17, 2002.
Murray, R.C., C.R. Schwalbe, S.J. Bailey, S.P. Cuneo and S.D. Hart. 1995. Reproduction in a Population of the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus agassizi in the Sonoran Desert. Herpetological Natural History 4: 83—88.
National Park Service (NPS). 2001. Desert Tortoise. Internet site: http:llwww.nps.gov/mojal planning/tort.htm. Accessed: February 15, 2002.
NatureServe Explorer. 2006. An Online Encyclopedia Of Life [web application]. Version 4.6. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Accessed: Multiple dates in 2006.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). No date. Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Animals of Nevada Fact Sheets. Internet site: http://ndow.org/wild/animals/facts/birds_baldeagle .shtm. Accessed: November 11, 2005.
Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2006. Nevada Natural Heritage Program Internet site http:llheritage.nv.gov/Iists/animlso4.htm Accessed: January and February, 2006.
2004. Detailed Rare Animal List. Internet site: http:llheritage.nv.gov/animlsml.htm. Accessed: 2006.
2004. Eriogonum corymbosum var. (unnamed). Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Internet site: http:llheritage.nv.gov/atlas/eriogcorymniles.html. Accessed: January 18, 2005.
Nevada Natural Heritage Database (NNHD). 2006. Accessed several times in 2005 and 2006 at: http://heritage.nv.gov/lists/animlso4.htm.
Oftedal, 0.1. 2002. Nutritional Ecology of the Desert Tortoise in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts. Pages 194 — 241 in The Sonoran Desert Tortoise: Natural History, Biology, and Conservation, T. R. Van Devender, ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Phillips, A.R. 1948. Geographic Variation in Empidonax traillil.Auk 65:507-514.
Phillips, A.R., J. Marshall and G. Monson. 1964. The Birds of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Rubink, D. 1982. Southwest Recovery Plan. Pages 151-152 in Ingram, T.N., Ed. Bald Eagle Restoration. Eagle Valley Environmentalists. Apple River, Illinois.
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 43 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Ryser, F. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.
Sogge, M.K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra and T.J. Tibbiffs. 1997. A Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol. Technical Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Colorado Plateau Research Station.
Spangenberg, E.K. 1995. Plants Eaten by Juvenile Desert Tortoises in the Central Mojave Desert. Paper presented at the National Biological Service Desert Tortoise Symposium, 1995. Internet site http:llwww/tortoise-tracks.org/ publications! ksplants.html. Accessed: January 17, 2001.
State of Arizona. 7990. Final Report and Recommendations of the Governor’s Riparian Habitat Task Force. Executive Order 89-76. Streams and Riparian Resources. Phoenix, Arizona. October 1990. 28 pp.
Stevens, L.E. and G.L. Waring. 1985. The Effects of Prolonged Flooding on the Riparian Plant Community in Grand Canyon. Pp. 81-86 in Johnson, R.R. C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patten, P.F. Folliott and R.H. Hamre (technical coordinators). Riparian ecosystems. and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 523 pp.
Still, E. W. 2004. Home Range Use and Reproduction in a Population of Desert Tortoises from Rincon Mountains, Tucson, Arizona. M.S. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Stitt E.W., C.R. Schwalbe, D.E. Swann, R.C. Averill-Murray and A.K. Blythe. 2003. Sonoran Desert Tortoise Ecology and Management: Effects of Land Use Change and Urbanization on Desert Tortoises. Report to National Park Service. 78 p. ÷ V.
Stitt, E.W., and C.Davis. 2003. Gopherus agassizil (Desert Tortoise). Caliche Mining. Herpetological Review. 34 (1): 57.
Stoleson, S.H. and D.M. Finch. 1999. Unusual Nest Sites for Southwestern Willow Flycatchers. Wilson Bulletin 111: 574— 575.
Szaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian Forest and Scrubland Communities of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants 9(3-4): 69-138.
Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of Cattle Grazing on Passerine Birds Nesting in Riparian Habitat. Journal of Range Management 39(3): 254-258.
Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork. 1109 p.
Tracy, C.R. 2007. Recovering the Desert Tortoise with Science and Creative Management. University of Nevada Biological Resources Research Center Internet site: hhtp:/!www.brrc.unr.edu/data!docs/nbisp96/nbitort.html. Accessed: February 15, 2002.
FinalBiologicalAssessment 44 EPG SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 ______
Turner, Frederick B. 1986. Management of the Desert Tortoise in California. In: Management of the Desert Tortoise in California: Proceedings of the symposium; 1985 March 3-5; Malibu, California. In: Herpetologica. 42 (1): 57-58. [136961
Turner, R.M. 1994. 152.1 Great Basin Desertscrub pp 145-155 in D.E. Brown, Ed. Biotic Communities Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 342 pp.
Turner, R.M. and D. E. Brown. 1994. 154.1 Sonoran Desertscrub pp 190-200 in D. E. Brown. Ed. Biotic Communities, Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 342 pp..
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fUSFWS). No date. Bald eagle population: Number of Breeding Pairs 1990 to 2003. Internet site: www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/nos-state.htm. Accessed: November 14, 2005.
2003. Notice of Availabilityof the Final Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Federal Register 68:10485.
2002. Southwestern WillowFlycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
.1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 64(128): 36454-26464.
1997. Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Register 62:39129 - 39147.
1995a. Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald Eagle Reclassification; Final Rule. Federal Register 60(133): 36000-36010.
1995b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule Determining Endangered Status of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Register 60: 10694 — 10715.
1994a. Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. 73 p. + Appendices.
1994b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Critical Habitat for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. Federal Register 59: 5820— 5866.
1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Statusforthe Mojave Population of the DesertTortoise. FR 55(63): 12178-12191.
1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Emergency Determination of Endangered Status for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. Federal Register 54: 32326 - 32331.
FinalBiologicalAssessment EPG 45 SWIP — Southern Portion July 2, 2007 ed.
site
C.R.
EPG
2007
More:
Report
2,
Anthony
Sonoran
and
University,
Ecosystem
July
Internet
The
Southwestern
Devender,
in
Dickinson, Vine,
Technical
America,
the
Site.
Arizona
Van
193
of
Rangeland V.M. —
Desert
North
T.R.
General
of
and
160
Northern
HoIm,
Flycatcher
at Mallows,
York.
Forest
Station,
Pages
Conservation
P.A.
Willow
Geography
New
Conservation,
and
USGS
Station
Grasses,
Sonora.
Esque,
by
and
York,
Research
Physical
Field
46
and
2003.
2002.
Ecology, New
T.C.
the
7,
Southwestern
Biology,
in
Mountain
Maintained
Press,
Plateau
Arizona
Barrett.
Status,
March
in
2002.
Tucson.
Rocky
History,
S.L.
199-216
2000.
Averill-Murray,
Press,
and
University
Colorado
Tortoise
USFS
Accessed:
(USGS).
Pages —
Natural
R.C.
Wirt
(USFS).
Oxford
Arizona
Desert
E.B.
Rivers.
of
Survey
T.R.,
Arizona. ed.
Center
Portion
the
Tortoise:
Flycatcher.
Assessment
Service
of
2002.
Orme,
R. Flagstaff,
University RMRS-GTR-60. http://www.usgs.nau.edu/swwf/. Diet Desert Science Schwalbe,
Willow Southern
E.E.
Geological
Forest Devender, —
Biological
U.S. U.S.
Van Wohi,
Final
SWIP
] Coz 0 jz -D z<—I 0>
Iw l’Co ?co zi oJ
0 w 0 Co
iTh Th TABLE OF CONTENTS
A- 1 IntroductionJustification for Determinations A- 2
Other Special Status Species Evaluation A-i 1 Mammals A-li Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) A-il
Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) A-il Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) A-i 2 Silver-Haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) A-i 3 Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) A-i 3 Desert Valley Kangaroo Mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus albivernte,) A-i 3 Pahranagat Valley Montane Vole (Microtus montanus fucosus) A-i 3 California Myotis (Myotis californicus) A-i 4 Small-Footed Myotis (Myotis leibi,) A-i4 Long-Eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) A-i 5
LittleBrown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) A-i 5 Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) A-i 5 Long-Legged Myotis (Myotis volans) A-16 Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis) A-i 6 Nelson Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) A-i7 Western Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus) A-i 8 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Plecotus = Corynorhinus townsendii) A-i 8 Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) A-i 9 Birds A-19 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) A-i 9 Golden Eagle (Aquila chnysaetos) A-20 Short-Eared Owl (Asio flammeus) A-20 Long-Eared Owl (Aslo otus) A-2i Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) A-2i Juniper Titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) A-22 Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) A-23
Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) A-24 Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) A-24 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) A-26 Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) A-26 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) A-26 Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) A-27 Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) A-28 Pinyon Jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) A-28 Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens) A-29
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) A-29 Black Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte atrata) A-30 Lewis’Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) A-31
Long-Billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) A-32 Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) A-32 Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens) A-33 Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) A-34
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-i EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Table of Contents (continued)
Red-Naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) A-35 Crissal Thrasher (Toxostoma crissale) A-35
Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinioi A-36 Reptiles A-37 Banded Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum) A-37 Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana) A-38
Short-Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi [douglashj) A-38 Common Chuckwalla (Sauromalus ate, A-39 Amphibians A-40 Arizona (Southwestern) Toad (Bufo m. microscaphus) A-40 Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) A-40 Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) A-41 Fish A-41
White River Desert Sucker (Catostomus clark! intermedius) A-41 Preston White River Springfish (Crenichthys baileyl albjvallis) A-42 Moapa White River Springfish (Crenichthys baileyl moapae) A-42 Moorman White River Springfish (Crenichthys bailey! thermophilus) A-43 Relict Dace (Relictus solitarius) A-43 White River Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus spp.) A-44 Pahranagat Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus velifer) A-45 Invertebrates A-45
Schell Creek Mountainsnail fOreohelix nevadensis) A-45 Duckwater Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis aloba) A-46 Southern Duckwater Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis anatine) A-46 Transverse Gland Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis cruciglans) A-46 Landyes Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis landey,) A-46 Sub-Globose Steptoe Ranch Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis orbiculata) A-46 BifidDuct Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis peculiaris) A-46 Southern Steptoe Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis sulcata) A-47 Grated Tryonia fTryonia clathrata) A-47 Pahranagat Naucorid Bug (Pelocoris s. shoshone) A-47 White River Wood Nymph (Cercyonis pegala pluvialis) A-47 Baking Powder Flat Blue (Euphilotes bernardino minuta) A-48 White River Uncas Skipper (Hesperia uncas grandiose) A-48
Steptoe Valley Crescentspot (Phyciodes poascoensis [cocyta] arenacoloi’) A-48 Plants A-49 Las Vegas Bearpoppy (Arctomecon californica) A-49 White Bearpoppy; Merriam Bearpoppy (Arctomecon merriami,) A-49 Eastwood Milkweed (Asciepias eastwoodiana) A-50 Sheep Range Milkvetch;Crescent Milkvetch (Astragalus amphioxys var. musimonum) A-50 Threecorner Milkvetch (Astragalus geyeri var. triquetrus) A-50 Halfring Mi!kvetch(Astragalus mohavensis var. hemigyrus) A-51 Currant Milkvetch (Astragalus uncialis) A-51 White River Catseye; Welsh Catseye (Cryptantha welshii) A-52 Las Vegas Buckwheat (Erigonum corymbosum var. iniesii) A-52 Sunnyside Green Gentian (Frasera gypsicola) A-53 Rock Purpusia (Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa) A-53
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-u EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Table of Contents (continued)
Pioche Blazingstar (Mentzelia argillicola) A-54 Tiehm Blazingstar (Mentzelia tiehmñ) A-54 Yellow Twotone Beardtongue (Penstemon biocolor ssp. bicolor) A-54 Parish Phacelia; Playa Phacelis (Phacelia parishii) A-55 Schelesser Pincushion; Schlesser Fishhook Cactus (Scierocactus schlesseri) A-55 Currant Summit Clover (Trifoliumandinum var. podocephalum) A-56
References A-57
LIST OF TABLES
A-i SWIP - White Pine to Harry Allen - Sensitive Species Evaluation A- 3
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-ui EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 if
is
of
or
to
A-
for
the
not
The A-i EPG
Pine 2007
Field
area. been
could
Table
below. 2,
species
(NNHP)
species in
included Ely
Table
operation likely
portion WPES
probability operation,
Table July
present,
have
surveys, in
White
appendix
stipulations
reviewed
listed
located. the
project in
Following
be and listed
these
The
of large
or
this
and SWIP
would be
potentially to
the
sensitive
Program
a
of
low.
cited
that
project
column
in
the
of
will
that
including
or
Nye,
species
in
the
last
action
known
note
request construction,
list
intent
types
determinations
justifications
a
contacted to
for
construction
The the
conducted.
Heritage
the
Plan), the
detail pre-construction
The
in
jurisdiction ranges. species
the either
presence
Lincoln,
at
medium,
the
project
in
from
EVALUATIONS
Substation
been habitat with
of
been
are
These
(COM
habitat. area.
the
listed
listed
Natural
important
identified high,
whose
Clark,
known
A
also
have
effects that
more
is
are
elevation
in
a additional as
Plan
their
It from
primarily
or
addition,
presented
is
project
or (14)
Thirtymile
SPECIES and
associated sites Assessment have for
(3)
across
In
Nevada
listed
one are
occur
the
area. species
resources.
(18)
the measures
potential
is
there
(4)
the
non-federally
resulting
A-i
if
plants
APPENDIX that
on
species
(BLM)
compiled
(26)
to
internet impacts
within
(7)
species.
potential
Maintenance
include and project
STATUS
which Biological
determinations
yes
rare
sensitive
discussed.
measures
species
and
geographical
these been
on
the
mitigation
biological the
as the
is and
impacts
Birds Plants(17) Mammals Fish Reptiles Invertebrates Amphibians
The
area
species
for
BLM
DRAFT
these
in
on
impacts
to
listed
their
discussion
and to
long-term
of
occurring
for given
have
These
the
the
Management
SPECIAL of
have
action
1.
4. 5. 3. 6. 7. 2.
persons,
species
and
species and
of
any
of
any
surveys
potential Assessment
facilities.
present within including
cross
a
BLM. Operation,
of
attached
utilized
for effects
Land
could
each
and
by
will
short-
project
lists
Office
of
determinations,
non-federally
project
was
line
been
listing probability introduction, Biological
accounts
habitats
habitats
line
the
analysis,
of
Ely
table,
A-i both
references, the
potential
has
these
this
ADDITIONAL
determination
potential Portion to
for
Bureau
this
which
the other
those A
a
Construction, necessary
consideration,
within federal
the
in
Table species
information,
Other
on
to
discusses by
the
species
for
site,
in
reasonable the
into
making of
transmission
Allen Southern
a
only appendix
following -
to
occur
transmission
maintenance Appendix
address
present
Based
provide
the
have INTRODUCTION appendix Office internet This provided additional Support this to of Counties. Otherwise, A-i, column be Harry 1. sensitive refer determined When taken consideration and may lead Final to SWIP
] a
is is
spill
EPG
2007
COM
highly
only
known
project that
2,
area
riparian
species,
and
the
mitigation
the
the
July
or
in
the
by
degree
by
project
from
control
project
represents
a
considered
aquatic
the
to
is
and
affected
to
measures
required
distance erosion
be
affected
further.
within
be
species species
and
species,
impacts
could
even
mitigation
the
the
elements
the
could
significant
to
occurring
by
for
a
impacts
potential
crossings, project
habitat
potentially
are
use
the
of
species.
impacts
its
potentially
species
that
Plan,
available
more
the
or
stream
A-2
any
or the
that
reduce
for
all
substation COM
of
for
species
habitat one
will
application
habitat
to the
and
the
span
involved
the
Plan
such
of
the
for
will
to
of
potential
populations
route
limited probability
part
insignificant.
plants
COM
line
due
Assessment the
a
line
affect
or
be
habitat are
the
the
known
portion
to
in
are
and
the
Biological
small
of
animals
suitable
species
Determinations low,
a species,
adversely
the
of
of
transmission
Portion
to the for
specified
transmission
anticipated
A
very
consequential,
the
not measures
only
portion
on as
the
the
are
for
amount number
Southern
small -
would
Appendix
Since
Effects Since
The
The
represents Plan. measures unlikely. but habitat a) considered b) considered habitats Justification c) U) prevention very e)
Final
SWIP TABLE A-i
SWIP - WHITE PINE TO HARRY ALLEN - SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURENCE AND EFFECT Probability for Habitat in White Occurrence Justification for Project Pine Nye Lincoln Clark in Project Determination of Common Name Scientific Name Status Area County County County County Area Effects MAMMALS Pallid Bat Antrozous palildus BLMS All X X X X Moderate a, C Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus FPS (The Columbia SB; MDV High a, c idahoensis Basin’s distinct population segment is listed as endangered), FSC, BLMS, NP Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum FSC, BLMS, NP All X X X X Low a, b, c Silver-Haired Bat Lasionycteris BLMS R-W; PJ; MC x x x x Low a, c, U noctivagans Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus BLM5 R-W; PJ; MC X X X X Low a, c, U Desert Valley Microdipodops FSC, BLMS SB; MDV Kangaroo Mouse megacephalus X Moderate a, c albiventer Pahranagat Valley Microtus montanus FSC, BLMS R-W; MDV Moderate a, c Montane Vole fucosus California Myotis Myotis californicus BLMS All X X X X Moderate a, c Long-Eared Myotis Myotis evotis BLMS All X X X X Low a, b, c
Small-Footed Myotis Ieibll FSC, BLMS All Moderate a, C Myotis Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus BLMS All X X X Low a, c, U
Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes FSC, BLMS All X X X X Moderate a, b, C
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-3 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 TABLE A-i
SWIP - WHITE PINE TO HARRY ALLEN - SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURENCE AND EFFECT Probability for Habitat in White Occurrence Justification for Project Pine Nye Lincoln Clark in Project Determination of Common Name Scientific Name Status Area County County County County Area Effects Long-Legged Myotis volans BLMS PJ; MC Moderate a, b, c Myotis Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis BLMS All X X X Low a, b, c, e Desert Bighorn Ovis canadensis BLMS, economically MDS High a, b, C Sheep nelsoni important as a game X X animal Western Pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus BLMS All x High a, b, c Bat Townsend’s Big- P!ecotus townsendll BLMS All High a, b, C Eared Bat Brazilian Free- Tadarida brasiliensis BLMS All x x x High a, b, c Tailed Bat
Northern Goshawk Accipitergentilis FSC, BLMS, NP, MC; R-W; x x x Low a, b, C, d BCC SB Golden Eagle Aqulla chrysaetos FSC, BEA, BLMS, All x x x x Moderate a, b, c BCC
Short-Eared Owl Asio flammeus BLMS, BCC R-W; MG: Moderate a, b, c - PJ; SB Long-Eared Owl Aslo otus BLMS, BCC R-W; MC; x x x x Moderate a, b, C MDV; PJ Western Burrowing Athene cuniculana FSC, BLMS, NP, SB; MDV High a, c, Owl hypugaea BCC x x x Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus ndgwayi BLMS MC; SB; High a, b, c (griseus) MDV; PJ
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-4 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 TABLE A-i
SWIP - WHITE PINE TO HARRY ALLEN - SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURENCE AND EFFECT Probability for Habitat in White Occurrence Justification for Project Pine Nye Lincoln Clark in Project Determination of Common Name Scientific Name Status Area County County County County Area Effects a, b, C Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis FSC, BCC, BLMS, PJ; R-W; x High NP MDV; SB High a, b, c Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni FSC, BLMS, NP, PJ; MDV; SB x x x x
a, b, c Greater Sage Centrocercus BLMS, NP, BCC R-W; SB X X X Present Grouse urophasianus Low a, b, c Western Snowy Charadrius BLMS, NP, BCC R-W x x Plover alexandrinus nivosus a, b Black Tern Childonias niger FSC, BLMS, NP, R-W x x Low BCC Western Yellow- Coccyzus FC, BCC R-W Low a, b, C, e billed Cuckoo americanus X X X X occidentalis Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus BLMS, BCC All X X X X Moderate a, b, c Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis BLMS R-W; MG X X X X Low a, b, c Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus BLMS, 8CC R-W; MC; Moderate a, b ,c cyanocephalus MDV; PJ; SB Yellow-Breasted Icteria virens BLMS R-W Low a, b, C x X X X Chat Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus BLMS, BCC P]; SB; MDV X X X X High a, b, C Black Rosy-Finch Leucosticte atrata BLMS SB X X X X High Lewis’s Melanerpes lewis BLMS, 8CC R-W; P1 Moderate a, b, c X X Woodpecker
EPG Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-5 SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007
July 2007 2,
Portion Southern SWIP
-
A-6
EPG
Assessment Biological the to A Appendix Final
x x x
Moderate
MDV BLMS obesus a, Sauromalus Chuckwalla C
[douglasiiJ
X hemandesi Lizard
c a,
High MDV SB; BLMS Phrynosoma Short-Horned
SB; MDV pyromelana Kingsnake
c a, Moderate
MC; R-W; BLMS Lampropeltis Mountain Sonoran
cinctum suspectum
Monster
x
a, C Moderate MDV NP R-W; FSC, BLMS, Heloderma Gila Banded
REPTILES
c b, a, High MC PJ; BCC BLMS, vicinior Virea Vireo Gray
c b, a, Moderate X X X MDV; R-W BCC BLMS, crissale Toxostoma Thrasher Crissal
nuchalis Sapsucker
U c, b, Low a, R-W MC; BCC BLMS, Sphyrapicus Red-Naped
gramineus
c b, a, Moderate PJ MDV; SB; BCC BLMS, Pooccetes Sparrow Vesper
X X b, a, X Moderate PJ C MDV; NP BLMS, nitens Phainopepla Phainopepla
c X b, a, Low X X X MC; PJ; R-W BCC BLMS, NP, ilammeolus Otus Owl Flammulated
americanus
x x
x
c Low a, MG b, R-W; BCC BLMS, Curlew Numenius Long-Billed
County County County Area County Effects Area Status Name Scientific Name Common
in Clark Lincoln Nye Project Pine Project of Determination
Occurrence in White Habitat for Justification
for
Probability
AND EFFECT OCCURENCE SPECIES SENSITIVE
EVALUATION SPECIES SENSITIVE HARRY ALLEN TO PINE WHITE
SWIP - -
A-i TABLE
Southern Portion SWIP - 2, 2007 July
A-7
Assessment Biological to the A Appendix Final EPG
Mountainsnail nevadensis
x
a,
c FSC, R-W BLMS Oreohelix Creek Schell Low
INVERTEBRATES
Speckled velifer Dace
X
Pahranagat Rhinichthys NP BLMS, R-W FSC, osculus Moderate a, e
ssp. Speckled Dace
X
X
BLMS FSC, Rhinichthys Rivet White R-W osculus Low a, d, e
Dace Relict Relictus solitarius R-W NP BLMS, FSC, Low a, U, e X
Springfish River rmophllus the
x
White Crenichthys Moorman FSC, balleyl BLMS, R-W NP Low a, e U,
Springfish moapae
River White Moapa Crenichthys balleyl NP FSC, R-W Low a, d, e
Springfish River albivaiis
x
Preston
Crenichthys White
baieyl NP BLMS, FSC, R-W Low a, d, e
Sucker intermedius
x
White Desert River Catostomus
clarki FSC, BLMS,
NP
R-W Low a, d, e
FISH
Frog
x
x Northern
Leopard pipiens Rana BLMS
R-W Low c, e
Frog
x
x
Columbia Spotted Rana
luteiventris FC, BLMS R-W
Low e c
Toad
(Southwestern) microscaphus
X
X
Arizona
Bufo microscaphus
BLMS R-W;
pj Low e C,
AMPHIBIANS
Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
Area County County County County Area Effects
Project
Pine Nye Lincoln Clark in Project Determination of
Habitat in
White Occurrence Justification for
for
Probability
SENSITIVE SPECIES
J,OCCURENCE AND EFFECT :
SWIP
WHITE TO PINE HARRY ALLEN
SENSITIVE - SPECIES EVALUATION -
TABLE A-i TABLE A-i
SWIP - WHITE PINE TO HARRY ALLEN - SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION .ENSlTIVE SPECIES OCCURENCE AND EFFECT Probability for Habitat in White Occurrence Justification for Project Pine Nye Lincoln Clark in Project Determination of Common Name Scientific Name Status Area County County County County Area Effects Duckwater Pyrg Pyrgulopsis aloba BLMS R-W X Low d Southern Pyrgulopsis anatina BLMS R-W Low d Duckwater Pyrg Transverse Gland Pyrgulopsis BLMS R-W x Low d Pyrg cruciglans Landyes Pyrg Pyrgulopsis landeyl BLMS R-W X Low d Sub-Globose Pyrgulopsis BLMS R-W Low d Steptoe Ranch orbiculata X Pyrg Bifid Duct Pyrg Pyrgulopsis BLMS R-W x Low d peculiaris Southern Steptoe Pyrgulopsis sulcata BLMS R-W Low d Pyrg Grated Tryonia Tiyonia clathrata FSC, BLMS R-W X X X Moderate b, e
Pahranagat Pelocoris shoshone BLMS R-W X Low d Naucorid Bug shoshone White River Wood Cercyonis pegala FSC, BLMS R-W X X X High a c Nymph pluvialis Baking Powder Flat Euphiotes BLMS MDV x None d Blue bernardino minuta White River Uncas Hesperia uncas BLMS RW X Low a Skipper grandiosa Steptoe Valley Phyciodes FSC, BLMS R-W
Crescentspot pascoensis X - Moderate a, c arenacolor
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-B EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 TABLE A-i
SWIP - WHITE PINE TO HARRY ALLEN - SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION
‘: t •‘ V’OcCURENCE AND EFFECT Probability for Habitat in White Occurrence Justification for Project Pine Nye Lincoln Clark in Project Determination of Common Name Scientific Name Status Area County County County County Area Effects PLANTS Las Vegas Arctomecon FSC, BLMS, NP MDV; SDS X Moderate b Bearpoppy californica White Bearpoppy; Arctomecon FSC, BLMS MDV Merriam merriamil X X X Moderate b Bearpoppy Eastwood Asciepias FSC, BLMS PJ; SB; MDV x x Present a, c Milkweed eastwoodiana Sheep Range Astragalus FSC, BLMS MDV Milkvetch; amphioxys var. X X Moderate a, c Crescent Milkvetch musimonum
Threecorner Astragalus geyeri FSC, BLMS, NP MDV X X Moderate a, C Milkvetch var. tnguetrus Halfring Milkvetch Astragalus FSC, BLMS, NP MDV mohavensis var. X X X Moderate a, c hemigyrus Currant Milkvetch Astragalus uncialis FSC, BLMS MDV X Low a, c White River Cryptantha welshll FSC, BLMS PJ; SB Catseye; Welsh X X X Present a, c Catseye Las Vegas Eriogonum BLMS, FSC MDV Buckwheat corymbosum var. X High a, b nllesll Sunnyside Green Frasera gypsicola FSC, BLMS, NP MDV; SB X Moderate a, c Gentian x
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-9 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007
Portion Southern SWIP
July 2, 2007 -
#10
Assessment Biological to Appendix the A Final EPG
Society Geographic Explorer NatureServe 2002; National Pendley 2006; 2005; Stebbins 2003
Burt 2003; Benson 1998; References: Grossenheider BLM 1982; and AQU Boone Hiatt 1980; & Hoffmeister 2003; 1986; Peebles Kearney and Lee 1960; et al. 1980;
Wildlife Nevada Species Protected State
of NP scrub desert Salt SDS
— —
Species
Federal FSC
Concern of Sagebrush SB
— —
Candidate Federal FC Grasslands MG
— -
Species BLMS Sensitive BLM
vegetation MDV Desert
Mojave — —
Golden
Protection Eagle and Bald Protected Act by BEA
Riparian R-W
Wetlands — — -
Conservation
BCC Bird Concern of Piñon-juniper PJ
woodland — —
Definitions: Status Habitat Relevant Types to the Project:
LEGEND
Clover podocephalum var.
x
x
Currant
Summit Trifolium FSC, andinum PJ BLMS High a, c
Fishhook Cactus
Schlesser
x Pincushion; schlesseri
Schiesser Sclerocactus BLMS FSC, MDV
High a, C
Playa Phacelia
X
X
X
X
Moderate
a, C Phacelia; Parish Phacelia parishil BLMS FSC, MDV
Beardtongue ssp. bicolor -
x Yellow Twotone Penstemon bicolor
BLMS FSC, PJ MDV;
High a, c
Blazingstar Tiehm Mentzelia tiehmii
BLMS
SB; MDV
X X a, c Moderate
Pioche Blazingstar Mentzella argillicola
BLMS
SB; MDV
X
Low d
saxosa
x
X Purpusia Rock arizonica Ivesia d var. b, Low BLMS PJ; SB
Common
Name
Scientific
Name Status
Area County
County County County Area Effects
Project
Pine Nye
Lincoln Clark in Project Determination of
Habitat in
White
Occurrence Justification for
for
Probability
SENSITIVE
SPECIES
OCCURENCE AND EFFECT
SWIP
WHITE
TO PINE HARRY
ALLEN - SENSITIVE
SPECIES EVALUATION -
TABLE A-i OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES EVALUATIONS
1. MAMMALS
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus)
The Pallid Bat occurs in deserts and semiarid habitats throughout much of the southwestern United States (Barbour and Davis 1969; Harvey et al. 1999; Nowak 1994). The Pallid Bat is more typically found in desert scrub habitat, but ranges up into oak and pine elevations, and has been recorded as high as 10,000 feet (Barbour and Davis 1969; National Bat Working Group [NBWGJ 2002; Nowak 1994). Populations of the Pallid Bat are not large, ranging from approximately 12 to 100 individuals, with a maximum of about 200 (Barbour and Davis 1969; Hoffmeister 1986; Nowak 1994; Schmidly 1991).
During the summer, the Pallid Bat is especially active. It has both daytime and nighttime roosts. Night roosts are chosen for easy access and include mainly open areas such as porches, bridges, and open buildings. During the day it chooses areas out of sight, typically wedging itself into crevices of cliffs, caves, mines, and buildings. (AGFD 1993; Hall 1995; Hoffmeister 1986; Nowak 1994; Schmidly 1991). The Pallid Bat is sensitive to roost disturbance. Other potential threats are mine reclamation and vandalism at roost sites (Western Bat Working Group [WBWGJ2006).
The Pallid Bat forages near rocky outcrops, at elevations rarely above 6,000 feet. This species is unusual because it forages mainly on the ground, or by picking prey off vegetation. Evidently few prey are taken in-flight.When foraging they typically fly low over the ground searching for prey, their prominent eyes possibly having evolved to enable this type of hunting (Barbour and Davis 1969). The Pallid Bat feeds primarily on arthropods, including beetles, crickets, true bugs, moths, scorpions, centipedes and others (Barbour and Davis 1969; Harvey et al. 1999; Schmidly 1991). It also willtake lizards and small rodents (Harvey et al. 1999).
Pallid bats are likely to occur along much of the project route, particularly associated with Mohave Desert and Great Basin habitats. The Pallid Bat has been recorded at the KirchWildlife Management Area (KWMA),near Sunnyside, Nevada (NDOW 2000). Potential impacts could include roost disturbance, if inhabited mine or cave sites are disturbed, and loss of prey associated with vegetation removal during the construction of project facilities and access roads.
Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)
The Pygmy Rabbit occurs in southeastern Oregon, northeastern California, extreme southwestern Montana, southern Idaho, Nevada, western Wyoming, western Utah, and possibly extreme northwestern Arizona. An isolated population exists in the Columbia Basin of Washington State (Bowers et al. 2004; Hall 1995).
This species is limited to big sagebrush flats of the Great Basin Desert, preferring large, dense clumps of sagebrush, through which it makes extensive runways (Nowak 1991). The proportion of shrub cover is the best predictor of Pygmy Rabbit presence in Oregon (Weiss and Veils 1984). The primary food of Pygmy Rabbit is big sagebrush (Artemisia t. tridentata) with a
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment EPG A-i 1 SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 in
of in
in
of
Its by
the the the
the
Bat
and
with
EPG
2007
limits
[BCI] been
small
of result in occur
British Rabbit
further roosts
annual habitat
2,
habitat
conifer
integral
and
unlikely
WBWG
with
bats.
of
range to
roosts
to
has
and
to
its
species
an July
it
and
be
counties,
invasion
crepuscular, Spotted
could (Hoffmeister
areas
but up washes,
bats,
conversion
Pygmy
where
wide
bat likely
1991;
of
leads shift
a
southern entirely
are
of
Pine
The
elevations
be prey
America
would
where
associations,
non-native
International
in
The The
risk
level
larger
cliffs,
burrows, associated
and other
burrows,
Mexico may
desert
in
species.
terrain, from
only
sagebrush,
and of
all
lower
the
White
almost
sea
cliffs, North
insect
Schmidly
Rabbits Bat
species
1995).
species.
affect
this
to species
riparian
Rabbit.
of of
and
recorded
from steep
would
typically
for
rocky
this
1999;
below
crevices
other
system
loss from sagebrush
grazing, recorded
1969). meadows,
individuals,
including Conservation
consists Queretaro,
Bat
Pygmy Nye increase
greatly
Spotted with WDFW for
for been
al.
Pygmy
common
of
to
in
with
from
habitat
Bat fire, et a
solitary.
(Bat
not can
been
has open
Some Davis
descending
The
prefers the
of
of
loss
records
plants,
1991).
areas roosts
complex
appearances
and
Spotted
1974 of insignificant
bat northern
south
and
eliminates has never
and
to
the coast
over
distinguishable
loss would
be in
is Spotted
(Harvey
preference
The 1986).
activity.
native compared
it
and
activities This to
Bat
a
several
avoids essentially
evidently
2
(Nowak
striking the
area
is
species’
easily Pacific
roads
include few
Impacts
of noted are with has
(Bradfield
A-i (Barbour
Bat pastures
areas.
it summer,
introductions
habitats,
2006).
the
the most
1995).
States,
are conservation
foraging
Bat diet
environments,
of Spotted
the
and incremental
could
of been
project
summer The generally
other
species
There
anticipated
2000).
access (Hoffmeister distribution,
the
in
the Bat
the
sunrise
makes
(Hall
in
is
Spotted habitat.
along
compete
The
available
the
of
The
to
this
and
United
fWBWG
have
desert
and
variety
wide
Rabbit
but
Spotted
be
after
2006).
nocturnal
2006).
The
can
a
a Ground-disturbing
one
nearby
this that
fNDOW
eaten
found
dry pelage
habitat
Assessment
Spotted within
agriculture
the
records,
threat
in
in
suitable
overall. destruction
elevations
has
in
insects
would not construction to
hours
maculatum)
western
Pygmy
activities.
which the
1999). during
facilities
buildings
that
being is
white
WBWG
Bat
habitat.
habitat
habitat.
KWMA
of
high
suggest
two
al. line
the
known
the vegetation,
food 1999). Biological
often present
largest
altered
other
and
known
present
forages
area
possesses
and habitat,
to
et
of
the
sagebrush
on
al. (NatureServe
the
be
1994;
project
roost
be the
clearing
of
species,
Rabbit
few
Portion
to
indicate
more
et
Bat
most
to Bat grasses
Spotted
(Euderma
of
is
a A records
caves
seeking
peaking further
Records
from
black
poorly
communities
through
cliff
apparently
of
project
ability
sagebrush likely
in Based
but
the
impacts
Bat (Harvey
clearing
is
suitable
weed
likely loss
(Nowak
only
where
but ground
Pygmy Most
have
be the
Southern Harvey transmission
of
records -
the Spotted
Spotted
activity of
Appendix
region.
without
recorded
most
1986), Most habitats, moths; habitat Colombia, recorded Final Potential noxious or available part seasonally, is Spotted crevices winter, The since contrasting species treetops. 2006). would SWIP during The the 2006; within plants construction Although Habitat from dispersal areas is sagebrush proportion fragmentation
with
)
) Silver-Haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)
The Silver-Haired Bat is a solitary species, usually found in coniferous, mixed coniferous and deciduous forests but can occasionally be found in xeric habitats during migration (Hall 1995; Schmidly 1991). In Nevada its distribution is most likely statewide (Hall 1995). The Silver-Haired Bat has been recorded at the KWMA (NDOW 2000). It roosts in hollow trees, woodpecker holes, and loose bark, but also have been found in buildings and rock crevices (Hall 1995; Schmidly 1991). The transmission line would most likely not interfere with the roosting activity of this species because the line predominantly occurs in low elevation, non-forested habitats. The Silver-Haired Bat would be present within the project area only during nocturnal foraging activity at higher elevations. The removal of vegetation could impact insects that are preyed upon by this species. Overall, it is anticipated that the construction of project facilities and access roads would have little impact on this species.
Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)
This species occurs in a variety of habitats, but is more commonly found in wooded mountainous areas in western states (Hoffmeister 1986). There are several records of this species from Nevada, including Clark and Lincoln Counties (HaIl 1995), and in Nye County at the KWMA(NDOW 2000). The species is highly migratory but may persist in Nevada yearlong as northern populations from Canada and the northern United States winter in the southern United States (Nowak 1994). These bats generally roost in tree foliage and at the edges of clearings (Schmidly 1991). Roost sites within the project area should be limited to forested areas. The removal of vegetation that may include roost sites could adversely impact this species in areas of suitable habitat. Otherwise, this species would only be present during J nocturnal foraging activity, and no impacts to this species are anticipated from the construction of project facilities and access roads.
Desert Valley Kanqarco Mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus albiventeñ
The Desert Valley Kangaroo Mouse is recorded only in Desert Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada (HaIl 1995; Wilson and Ruff 1999). The preferred habitat for the species is primarily valley bottoms and alluvial fans dominated by big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and horsebrush (Wilson and Ruff 1999). It has a large, fatty tail, which aids in winter survival. Although primarily granivorous, Kangaroo Mice eat a wide variety of insects (Hall 1981). Because of the limited range of this animal, any activities or development that results in ground disturbance could potentially have negative impacts to the species. The transmission line route passes through the Coyote Springs Valley east of the Sheep Range, and does not enter Desert Valley where this species is known to occur. However, because of the proximity of the project route to the known range, and the presence of suitable habitat for the species, its presence in the project area cannot be discounted. Potential impacts to the Desert Valley Kangaroo Mouse could include crushing of animals in burrows, habitat disturbance, and loss of forage that provides food for the species.
Pahranaqat Valley Montane Vole (Microtus montanus fucosus)
This subspecies is found in desert riparian areas in the Pahranagat Valley of southern Nevada. It is adapted to low-elevation, wet valleys. The Pahranagat Valley Montane Vole is active year
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-i 3 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 in in
in
in in
of
at
of
line
this
and
The
end The true and
they only EPG
(BCI 2007
even
could
6,000
1986;
within
if
feet
habitat 2,
project
KWMA for
Vole
Coyote
Harvey
species
evening
holes
habitats, to
potential
to
and
that animals
south July
removal in
roosting
elevations,
2006). the
the the
Pahranagat Valley, cottonwood
recorded up
of
sites
this
fissures Mexico and
present
of
3,500
2006;
of
the at
including;
scrub species
species,
to
construction
The Vole
be
and
and
Montane
trees, cliffs,
transmission
loss
as
right-of-way.
rock
been
found
within higher BCI Hoffmeister
to
end
Roost Jake’s
forage.
this WBWG
this
above
central
as
of
be at
The morning
desert sites. susceptible has
of
crushing
County
insects, during such
to elevations of
rocky
Valley
some
in
likely
north
could
1969;
project
Springs 1999; upon.
Montane
at 1986;
in
the
east can
such
is
area
sycamore
vole. present
anticipated
be
buildings, Nye
roost
usually
more
in
small
al.
the
north, south Myotis occur
the
it
include
in in
found
hills
be
of
not Davis
preys also
at
records et
Valley
animals
Coyote individuals
places
could
the
project
crevices may
and species
could
are but
and within Pahranagat
activity
bark, suitable further
montane
the habitats,
woodlands in
Lake
the
could Canada
Hoffmeister
making
containing
variety
Myotis
of
the
the of
of typically
Harvey
of
the loss
a
several
impact
There
roads
is
pine Range,
1995),
under or 1995), Small-Footed
It
on
which
for
roads.
vegetation.
2006; present impacts
areas
Pahranagat
range,
(Barbour
crevice-like within peaks
1969;
species
on been
habitats;
of
between
Maynard
variety
particularly The
be
(Hall
of
BCI Grant 4 California
terrain.
(Hall
access
a
the piles, of
feeds
of
availability
has
flies
Otherwise,
habitat
subspecies
negatively access
southwestern in
This
A-i to species.
the the
have
riparian
Davis
and Bat
divide
ponderosa
could
present
the
and
species
and
of east
clearing
talus
restricted
Range. disturbance
ranges, variety
and
mines
substantial area.
rugged
deserts
variety
that
from other
on
counties
be
a
and
in
and
in
a
occurs
1986).
in
suitable
side
mile
There
in
plant
from
to
low
impacts
and
roost Egan
in
than facilities
a
highly
potentially
species
of
oak
in
distributed
beetles,
drainage
frequents
and project
runways
occurs
a
east facilities
leibig)
of
species
the
in
caves,
Lincoln mountain
roads
likely
Barbour
roosts
this
Small-Footed
species the 1969).
the
of
Some through Assessment Bat
also roosts
1998)
the
could
californicus)
depending has
3/4
is
resulting
activity,
near project
found
in
widely
of and
1991) and
Potential
moths,
It
al
removal
small
insect
project
found
a of
Bat
This
line
(Myotis
pass
(Hoffmeister,
and et.
access is
of
Davis
center
ground
often
be
2000).
east
about species
Myotis
and
Range,
2006).
possible
Western Biological
ants,
Myotis
in
area. Clark
(Myotis mines
species cross
1999).
present
locations
may the
foraging
is
not impact
and
the
1991).
and
can the
just in
The
the
it
The
Myotis
is
Myotis
the
will
(Schmidly
be Portion to
within (Hafner
Small-Footed
on
line
Creek
Ruff
in A
(NDOW
WBWG
also
for
runways
construction structures many
could Myotis
forages
line
and
and
California transmission
it
including
Small-Footed
through
construction
2000).
or at
The
Valley,
walls could
and
2006).
facilities
nocturnal
rocks
the
Schmidly prey
and (Barbour leafhoppers, Schell Southern
from
passes
1999; - The
the
Small-Footed
California Western Appendix
area,
KWMA present
pass
al.
the
(NDOW manmade under Nevada, elevation, canyon embankments, corridor during Small-Footed
although bugs, et project insect Final result burrows California trees species 2006; WBWG The the from Western where
vegetation The of SWIP route proposed The the (Wilson Springs are feet. modifications this round Valleys.
J is
is
is
of
or
al.
its
the the
and
and EPG
sites
over 2007
et
of trees,
could
2006;
and
where
loss
habitat
occurs 2,
related
spring.
bark
include
into
WBWG
habitats
facilities
of
foraging
facilities
record
creosote
be
which
Alaska. July
commonly
bat up (BCI
edge
west
for
until
mosquitoes,
may
habitats
minor
to
habitat roosting
one
bark under
(Harvey 1999;
primarily
from
into
Nevada,
project
microclimate the
to
project
riparian
abundance
This
zone most
but
al.
caves
sub-alpine
of in
in
of
and 2006). rocky
is through
habitat.
under
seems et
night,
to
delayed
posterior
it
suitable suitable
and
limits
its limited
habitats preference
habitats, at narrow is
especially state
2006). up if
in
structures,
a
the
or
Counties,
but
of be
A oak-pine
avoids trees,
threat
locations,
at
Canada,
concentrations
sites Nevada
only
mines
(Harvey
Bat
the
have
Pine
of
construction
forage
snags
in
in
1999).
encountered
Construction
main WBWG
the
insects,
(NatureServe
to variety
ovulation should
chaparral
hollow
of
young. However,
the
is
roost
al.
manmade
from
Winter
Brown present in
or
much generally They
The
White
et elevation but
its
elevations),
wide
one maternity
1986;
mid-elevations
with
flying
a seems
Myotis
beetles
other
1994).
line
counties and Little
of
hairs
It
of removal
in
Nevada
sage,
near
sometimes
occasionally
higher
from
anticipated.
through
secure. all Harvey
and
the higher
generally
species.
small Elko
the buildings,
October, birth
are
suitable
short
5
on
and not
Nowak disturbance. (at
in
found
in
and
2006).
so 2006).
from the
than
associated
of
of
and
from is is
1969; the
Hoffmeister areas,
A-i
consists
of
counties. Long-Eared
available
They
are
effect
buildings
transmission
1999;
through
shrublands,
trees,
with
habitat be
human
rather shelter forests
States,
the diet elevations, in
fringe
no
WBWG
Davis
2006;
Myotis
al.
in
habitat
the
those
to
to to
hoppers, to
species forest.
habitat
forested
Its
et the
vegetation in
dead
and availability records
seek
outcroppings,
of
1986;
(NatureServe
(BCI
roosts
United
of higher
in
little
for
suitable
this
to
occur
water Since
resulting
evotis) Fringed
bat
and
September
rock Assessment
Most
vulnerable foraging
various impacts coniferous
of
2006).
Harvey a
roosting
lucifugus)
have
in
resident sensitivity thysanodes)
may
to
as to
The
roosts
is (Barbour
ponderosa) named days,
known
western
clearing
from
require the
Valley.
occupies
pass.
occupies
individuals commonly
is
elevations
young, (Myotis
moths,
1969;
their also
Hoffmeister Biological
the
the are
trees,
on
records potential
of
should
(Myotis
caves Bat
will
Myotis
desert
Bat
Myotis may Bat
of
(
50-60
(Pinus the impacts
lies,
and
occurs
they classified
lower Portion to
bats
from
Davis
permanent
Bat
1999;
frequently
Myotis
line dead and
lists
so
Myotis
low raising
membrane. A
(NatureServe
and affect
is
roads
roads.
a
most
pine
lasts
of
Brown
al.
Brown
Brown
Pahranagat
and
prey
Myotis for
the
caddisf
et
Mating
thousands
These elevations,
mines Southern
Brown
in
water,
some
the
(1995)
water, -
species
of Fringed
Little
Little
Little
Long-Eared
access Appendix access in
available,
species
hibernators somewhat
hollows
midges, Little Harvey 1999). in Gestation Fringed Hall ponderosa at suitable and throughout The over 2006). distribution have open
(Barbour higher tens and Final potential considered the interfemoral and The to
Long-Eared are The This SWIP from bush The transmission The
) —‘ it
is
of
in
or
et
or
for
the
and
it feet
very The EPG
prey 2007
been
but
prefer Long-
caves 1999;
2000),
United 2,
usually access
is Harvey access moths,
WBWG
cliffs,
typically resulting
foraging
to
cavities.
or
mines
al. cracks
within
has
2,500
in July
(Harvey
The
elevations,
areas,
in insect and suitable Hoffmeister
and
et It
uncommonly
surface.
(Barbour
tree 1986;
prey
1999;
destruction
habitats,
Myotis
be
western
cliffs, (NDOW
mines
in
seems
species,
primarily
source,
the
nests
al.
rocky in it
1999;
in found
1969).
nocturnal some
the
the
crevices
presence et
rather
insect
facilities
facilities
(Harvey
al.
is
of
in in
but
over would
mid-range
its
buildings
available. water
KWMA
sites
et
roosting
Fringed
but
Davis
insects,
approximately
probably
to
during
swallow avoids
is seldom low
elevation
some
(Hoffmeister that loss
of
crevices
roost and
Harvey
the
of
project
is
project
myotis
open of
ditches The
and
to
was
insects, species
of
oak
of very
Harvey
of
prey
of below
area
desert bark,
trees
from
higher or maternity
loss
present
1969;
elevations,
variety
this
variety
Myotis
generally a
in
potential a
kind
be 2006). low known
flying be
widespread
a
tree
abandoned
1969;
to
various
species
irrigation
areas,
where
a
(Barbour project
species
Davis
line
on
the
are
bats
or on
juniper,
only
Yuma uses
is
from
crevices,
this
medium
could
recorded
some
using
to
the water,
construction
Davis construction
It
the and
threat primarily
of
to
WBWG
is the
300
desert
beneath
They
roosts
feeds
rock
is
the
the with
feeds
and piñon,
to
6
over
common
ponds,
low There
it
alignment
within
species
in
habit
probably limited
habitats
Since day
up
lower
A-i of
1991).
1999;
bats,
with
recorded
Myotis
myotis,
primary
spaces
of
(Barbour
the
of
2004a). most
caves,
be during
Myotis
for
This
of bat the
al.
roosts.
tinajas,
(Barbour
would primarily
a
the
in
the
been
2000).
habitats
et
associated to
roosting
However,
trees,
along elevation,
variety
would
mines, caves
Schmidly
in (BISON
clusters and
Fringed
associated have
species
in
volans)
Myotis
forage utilizes or
feet in
woodlands
vegetation
elevation.
insectivorous
always buildings
wide
1969). Long-Legged
original probably generally impacts (NDOW Assessment
The (Harvey
observed
of
elevation
they
1986;
a
bats
or
other is is
habitat
species
feet
often
cavities
roosts
the 4,000
anywhere
mines
any
group
in
The
many
yumanensis)
it
pinyon
2006).
(Myotis
and
2004).
Davis
been
almost
with
bat
this vegetation 1969). be
use
be
moths
or KWMA higher
will Biological
disturbance,
like
use
than These
but banks, is
Myotis Myotis
clearing
3,300
of
It
to
(BCI
Long-Legged
and
found the
This
oak
the may
and
2004a).
Myotis
the
(Myotis
is
Davis Portion to
would
(WBWG
bridges,
However,
Hoffmeister could
seldom
bat. in
lower roost the
limited A
1986).
piñon-juniper
about
Myotis
Myotis,
stream
Fringed
no typically Compared
to from
in of
and
beetles and
clearing
has from streams,
at
in
2006).
Impacts
sites
Myotis
there
area
(Barbour
It
1969;
Myotis
Myotis is
beetles (BISON
1999).
the or Southern
not
the
and -
Long-Legged
Yuma
Yuma
species, Appendix
1999).
al.
(Barbour unlikely (WBWG Davis roads. Long-Legged roosting recorded 1986). Since States Legged encountered project small sensitive occurring et Because roads. encountered 2006). does resulting from The crevices activity.
which Yuma rivers Hoffmeister this
The generally buildings al.
Yuma caves Final
The
flies, SWIP
J N J ‘N In general, the presence of the Yuma Myotis within the project area would be very limited. J However, there are water sources near the project route, such as at the KWMA,and the Yuma Myotis is known to occur there (NDOW 2000). It is very likely the species may be present at locations of the crossing of the White River below the KWMA and east of the White Pine Mountain Range (areas will be spanned). The Yuma Myotis would only be present within the project area during nocturnat foraging activity, and no impacts to the Yuma Myotis or its habitat are anticipated from the construction of project facilities and access roads.
Nelson Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelson!)
The Nelson Bighorn Sheep is the Desert Bighorn race present in the precipitous desert mountain ranges of northwestern Arizona, southeastern California, southern Nevada, and southwestern Utah (Bighorn Institute, no date; McCutchen, no date). These ranges, particularly in the southern part of the state, typically feature broken rock, with numerous gullies and relatively sparse vegetation.
The four primary requirements for the Bighorn Sheep are food, water, escape terrain, and open space (Valdez and Krausman 1999). Bighorn primarily graze on grasses and torbs but eat other vegetation, depending on availability (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982). Because forage is more limited in rocky, montane areas, the Bighorn prefers large blocks of continuous habitat, which allows it to move regularly as they forage. They spend little time on the flat land between ranges and will not readily range far from the safety of the steep, rocky terrain (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982).
Water is a critical component of the habitat, and may be available in natural rock catchments, springs, and man-made supplemental water tanks and guzzlers. Many of these sources may be dry before the onset of the summer rains, making any remaining sources critical to the survival of the Nelson Bighorns. Agency biologists have expressed concern about construction in the vicinity of a man-made guzzler in the Arrow Canyon Range. The Project passes about a mile south and to the west of the guzzler, and there is concern that construction disturbance may prevent sheep from using the guzzler, especially during hot summer weather. It is notable, however, that similar activity in the Dome Rock Mountains of western Arizona actually resulted in radio-collared sheep being attracted rather than repelled (Smith et al. 1986). Intermittent seasonal surface water, springs, and the often-ephemeral tinajas in the desert ranges generally provide sufficient water resources for The Bighorn in most years. They may drink daily when water is available, but typically drink only every few days and can go without water for approximatelytwo weeks (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982).
Historically,overall distributionand density of the Nelson Bighornhas been in decline for many years. Primarilydue to the encroachment of man, the populations of the Nelson Bighornhave receded further intothe mountains.Competitionforforage from domestic and feral livestockis a criticalfactor affectingthe sustainable size of the Bighornpopulations (Buechner 1960; Valdez and Krausman 1999). Diseases also are spread from livestockto BighornSheep. Other habitat impacts have resulted from offroad vehicle use, invasions of non-native weedy plants, and fire suppression leading to encroachment of shrubby vegetation that adversely affects visibility.The Bighorn Sheep is considered a game animal and is hunted by humans, primarilyas sport hunting,for trophies.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-i 7 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 a is is is of In to of the this this it and and that and EPG 2007 have 1994 from cave night, sites. 1986, could to and where where occurs impact 2, include for typically and areas from At are gestation weeks nocturnal maternity access The continues cliffs, areas species flush is July hills Range 3 such comprise in forests, may area, of It sites could and to vulnerable. at the and species Bats line. Nevada species may 1995), walls, roosts. specimens may during in human anticipated 2½ recorded roost Sheep this species. (Hoffmeister through this and project at change Bighorn is (Hall day movement spring, are to autumn America. the for area fly to moths the vegetation canyon for in Several disturbance weed Big-Eared Otherwise, and piñon-juniper considered counties disturbance early to passes of in .and can potential transmission increased cavities and North all or It corridor and impacts impacts project of line habitats mines in the impacts 1986). vegetation begins disturbance, no noxious tree roosts human species. Nevada, by the roads. the intermountain born. removal adjacent for winter generally and by in and is Townsend’s Western townsendh) variety roost Mountains and this is and Potential Mating proposed and Suitable late resident The insectivores to vandalism, Potential of construction, where oak-woodlands, within the species access caves crossed the ranges or loss, young (Hoffmeister until 2006). of are activity, potential 2006). 1969). caves, counties be and habitat 2000). species This Delamar the 8 present. during occur near one habitat, throughout corridor. prefer 2006). the sensitive Ranges. Bats of deserts, will encroachment A-i nearby be permanent the this to most of Davis in Corvnorhinus of disturbance delayed a is foraging time, noise in and = Bighorn Pipistrelle facilities They fNDOW is most highly may toss and buildings, which are degradation, line 2006). likely It counties in (NatureServe Canyon is roost and (NatureServe non-migratory shrublands. widely hesperus’) distributed which is between Big-Eared the roads, 1986). project for be transmission at (NatureServe mines County possibility nocturnal Southwest, recorded and identified Western include Range, habitat of 2004). Bat Arrow to Lincoln (Plecotus occur occurs (Barbour is Assessment the species widely to the Nye where project fertilization the disturbed imperiled presence abandoned and Bat is and weeks during diet in In Bat Bats Bat (NatureServe potential months, as NNHP 6 Moore) the in proposed and Pipistrellus species Canyon Sheep ( Townsend’s appears areas & at when constructed only which Biological abandoned (Hoffmeister 3½ their by Big-Eared Clark including woodlands, human in the Vegas construction this rest some exists. of to KWMA or 2000; the and vulnerable in ton of Arrow is 2 Pipistrelle to Portion to Big-Eared 2006). the Las classified Big-Eared newly Big-Eared Bighorn Big-Eared from the A (Dames pistrelle Ovulation retreats weaned present forests and hibernacula the is crossed ground, at Pi is the deserts, it habitat much activities there in be from fNDOW EIS shelters from species and be in and threats outcrops Southern collected proportion to frequently between and Nelson Townsend’s - Western winter. Appendix rocky recorded present disturbance areas been likely project disturbed insect between Western species Nevada, The through species KWMA would The NatureServe found suitable Townsend’s large Townsend’s coniferous into lasts age, Townsend’s roosts they roosts natural Townsend’s specialists Other Final The foraging SWIP
) - include he disturbance or loss of roost sites, or the loss of individuals resulting from activities ) associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads. The clearing of vegetation may remove insect species that could serve as food by these bats.
Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)
The Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat, also called the Mexican free-tailed bat, is primarily an inhabitant of caves, mines and bridges where it is present in most of the southwestern United States (Barbour and Davis 1969; Hoffmeister 1986). The Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat typically occurs in very large colonies. A maternity colony of this species at Bracken Cave in Texas has been estimated at 20 million bats and is the largest aggregation of any mammal species known (Barbour and Davis 1969; Harvey et al. 1999). However, small groups of no more than a dozen of these bats are not uncommon. Brazilian Free-Tailed Bats are typically found at lower elevations in desert scrub habitats, but have been recorded as high as 9,200 feet (Barbour and Davis 1969). In Nevada, the Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat occurs primarily in the southern and western portions of the state (Hall 1995). The species is recorded from the KWMA (NDOW 2000). The Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat feeds primarily on small moths and beetles (Barbour and Davis 1969; Harvey et al. 1999).
The Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat is likely to occur within approximately the southern half of the project route. These bats could be present in the project area during nocturnal foraging activity. Potential impacts to this species could include disturbance or loss of roost sites, or loss of individuals resulting from the construction of project facilities and access roads. The clearing of vegetation may remove insect species that could be utilized as food by these bats.
2. BIRDS
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiis)
In North America, the Northern Goshawk ranges from near treeline in Alaska and across Canada, south in forested areas to the Great Lakes Region and New England in the East, and through the mountainous areas of the western United States, and south along the Sierra Madre Occidental into central Mexico (Alsop 2001; AOU 1998; Glinski 1998).
Northern Goshawks typically inhabit coniferous, deciduous or mixed forests, often in remote locations where old growth forest where large trees are present. They may also be present at forest edges, in riparian corridors, and in aspen groves of moderate to large size (AOU 1998; Glinski 1998). Northern Goshawks typically prey on small mammals such as squirrels and rabbits, but frequently take birds such as pigeons, doves, and jays fGlinski 1998). Northern Goshawks in the southern portion of their range, which includes Nevada, have relatively stable populations since their prey base is generally dependable (Wheeler 2003).
The single greatest threat to the Northern Goshawk is the loss of old growth forest, primarily as a result of heavy-cut logging methods, which include clear-cuffing. Most of this habitat loss currently occurs in Canada, where such forest harvest methods still are used commonly (Wheeler 2003).
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-i 9 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 N The Northern Goshawk is recorded from the KWMA (NDOW 2000), but its presence there is ] probably rare. In general, the project area does not contain any habitat that would be suitable for nesting by the Northern Goshawk, and it is anticipated that there would be no impact to this species resulting from construction of project facilities and access roads.
Golden Eagle (Aguila chrvsaetos)
The Golden Eagle is a large, dark raptor that can have a wingspan of up to eight feet (Alsop 2001). The Golden Eagle is relatively common in the western United States and can be found in a variety of habitats, but prefers open ground or low hills, where visibility is good for hunting (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Glinski 1998). They nest on cliffs, large or small trees, and sometimes telephone poles (Glinski 1998). The Golden Eagle feeds primarily on mammals, preferring rabbits and ground squirrels, but also will feed on snakes, birds, and large insects when mammals are unavailable (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Glinski 1998; Terres 1980).
Suitable nesting habitat for the Golden Eagle may be present in mountain ranges adjoining the project route, typically in rocky areas at moderate to higher elevations. The project area is located primarily in an open landscape, providing suitable habitat for foraging Golden Eagles. They have previously nested in the vicinity of Gap and Fox mountains south of Sunnyside, through which the project route will pass, the west side of the White River Valley, and in the Schell Creek Range (Dames & Moore 1994). The Golden Eagle also is recorded from the KWMA(NDOW 2000).
The primary potential impact to the Golden Eagle from the project would be from impacts to prey species associated with vegetation removal during the construction of project facilities and ] access roads. Since the territories of Golden Eagles can be as large as 60 square miles (Alsop 2001), the amount of vegetation representing prey habitat for the Golden Eagle that would be removed for this project is a very small portion of such habitat available in the area. The removal of this vegetation would increase visibility of prey within the right-of-way. This, along with the presence of the new electrical transmission line towers along the route that could be used by eagles as perches, could improve hunting effectiveness for Golden Eagles.
Short-Eared Owl (Aslo flammeus)
The Short-Eared Owl is tawny brown in color with large buff-colored patches on the upper sides of the wings, dark patches on the undersides of the bend of the wings and small ear tufts. It eats mainly rodents, especially meadow mice, but also white-footed pine and house mice, shrews, cotton rats, rabbits, pocket gophers, and bats. They also eat insects such as grasshoppers, June beetles, and cutworms in addition to small birds. They nest on the ground, sometimes in small colonies, and can lay up to 9 eggs, but usually it lays 4 to 7 eggs (Terres 1980).
Short-Eared Owls can be found in low, shrubby habitats that are abundant with small rodents. They also occur in grasslands, including extensive grassy areas of broad, lowland floodplains, and agricultural areas. They frequent areas intermixed with brush and woodland, provided there is ample open grassland to hunt. These owls tend to be found in the densest stands of grass (Glinski 1998).
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-20 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 or et
al.
the the
the
lost
and
EPG may
2007
et
small
1999; 1999; small of
night,
as
where 2000).
years,
for
2, dense, project
usually
natural
hunting
riparian
suitable
or
recorded
al.
by badgers,
at.
presence and were
and fEhrlich
vegetation
July
as mammals,
associated
as
the
is
et use
Owl
et
its
south of as day
Richardson’s temperate
(Ehrlich
of
(NDOW
nests
year
typically burrows
agricultural
offering
in Owl
or
such also far
the
and
if
serve
vegetation
to
project
of
construction
such
consecutive
as
excavated
of
and
may
(Dechant
clearing vegetation, burrowing
arthropods
(Dechant
portion
Dogs the
that
year the
KWMA
crevices select
during
source
of
Long-Eared
hunter,
young,
of
the
anywhere
They
the
or
several resident winters
animals
from
rock from
Short-Eared
removal The
sparse
burrows
burning hemisphere,
often
part Prairie
a colonial with
water airports
forage
for
variety
or
northern
rodent
or
a
is
from
eggs grasslands,
the prey
a
almost meadows
The
and
other
lack
and
may
tortoise. of
the
Owls
1998).
on
America species
or
used
with
Owl
occupy
small
caves by
northern
southern
that
during
rodent
loss
be
They
associated this winter.
slopes
present
deserts,
recorded desert along
Black-Tailed North
1995). the
the
fields
conditions,
Glinski
courses
to
preying
in
is utilize be
made
may
usually in
areas
of
of in al.
and
dry Burrowing
1995).
hypugaea) include
during golf
animals
In
associated
gentle
et
will
along species
available
Owl
Long-Eared
and
and
al.
present
could areas
as
A-21
of
roads.
impacts
much
adjacent
feeders,
et
prey
with
MilIsap
could
often prey
be
Burrows
The colonies
1980).
Owl
coyotes,
grazing,
winter
crepuscular-active
present
open
such
Western
1998),
to on
with
(Hjertaas
are
excavations
Owl
in
by
supply
or
access
be
1988; cunicularia areas
roads.
active
1999).
richardsonh). 1998). Potential
Long-Eared Hjertaas
occasionally
potential
Terres
that the
use
likely
al.
and
of semi-colonial
short throughout
1980). effects
only
Glinski at.
of limited
inhabits
on opportunistic
but et
armadillos, present
The
habitation in
Assessment
will
et
access
1999; Short-Eared
1998; the (AOU
are
are nocturnal
2000). (Athene
kept
more
loss
are
be Owl
association
likely
Long-Eared
otus) to a
edges al.
is
the
and ranges is
facilities Terres
well-drained
in
is
foxes,
et
Ehrlich
Owl
Owls
and sites
woodlands
Owls
the
also
human
the
Owls
Biological
Glinski
(Milisap
habitats.
most
Mexico
area (Spermophilus
depending
Owl Owl to
(Asio
(Dechant
(NDOW
at Owl
limited vegetation,
in
uses
the
1988;
project may
1998;
near
1995).
facilities
Burrowing
Portion
mixed to
It
be
usually
skunks,
nesting
Owl
of
vegetation
A
would
(Dechant
removal,
at.
al.
if
but often or
rocks
varies,
project
riparian
dense
climates
Burrowing
Burrowing KWMA impacts
Burrowing
Millsap
Oaxaca,
et Burrowing
and
(AOU
in et Squirrels but
areas
would
in
project
tree the
lands.
of
Southern
area
the
Long-Eared
Long-Eared -
xeric
Long-Eared
Western
Appendix
the
1988;
an
1988). roosts Long-Eared project habitat, in habitat, State Potential subarctic al. alignment, coniferous territory Within The Ehrlich from for range The The during construction with Hjertaas The surrounding Western occupy mammals, Ground
Western particularly Western Final woodchucks, cavities Western vertebrates SWIP
—‘ a
a
if
of of
for
is and
and
golf
prey
and
The
been
adult EPG
2007
could
1951;
those
project with
2, on central on
colonial
burrows
Juniper
Corman inverted
or phase
young
Mountain
there disturbed a!.
Owl
habitat
the
temperate
Valley
of
in
associated have
July
associated
an
or
alteration
the
insects et
1980).
Station. from
mobility, areas
Gap in
1998;
habitats
for
holes,
agricultural cold
on
Lake
along
eggs of
Owls
eggs,
nesting
depending
although to
their
human Martin
or
Terres
activities habitat
and
Energy Burrowing
Dry
public
other
re-colonize
(AOU
construction
of
by
vegetation
in
sources
land or
branches
the trees,
of
the occurring
extermination primarily
Pine
1988; 1996;
varies,
pine
of
anywhere
in
on
southwest
could
Potential
Burrowing
grading food
suitable
al.
2000).
nestlings
Western
equipment, roost
and
reduced
Because
in
et
feeds
during White
Brown
oak-juniper,
habitat and of
the
areas
removal
remaining
naturally
present
1995).
impact
present working
woodlands,
line.
for been
recorded
area
exist
(NDOW
loss Western
ponderosa
be
The
al. control
conversion
However,
often
2004b;
using
(Ehrlich
has
are
of
owls
often et
nesting
could
clearing to Owl
proposed
Titmouse
Foraging
the
with
construction
roads.
2000).
evergreen
could
project
suitable
fruit
KWMA
also any
the include
by
and
range roads.
day. trees, roads
nester,
removed.
(BISON
the
during
the
resilient,
transmission and
its
Owls
of
Hjertaas pinyon-juniper Juniper
1980).
near
They
access identified
at
through the
killed
A-22 habitat
could
(NDOW
are
Burrowing
abundance
Madrean
cavity
dry
be access
fairly
within
access
nuts,
and
The
has and
limbs
a
While
1999;
is
to
pinyon-juniper
Terres
1994).
and
during is
construction,
the
and
KWMA
proposed
terminus
equipment
cavities
reduced al. Burrowing
and
foraging
ELM
Hdgwayi)
Western right-of-ways
of
Titmouse
Owl
and
1994), fragmentation,
on
seeds,
2002).
nest
et
present
the
including
primarily
the
1988;
facilities
range
and
Moore
the
the
unlikely bark
in
available.
of
been
road
be
the
&
project 1995).
and
Assessment
to
facilities
nesting
Titmouse
NGS
the
are
and Moore
to
Juniper
at.
juniper,
from
impacts the
project
&
may
(Ehrlich
inhabits
in
have
nesting toss along
construction Burrowing
et
(Dechant completion
of to
consumes
the
become
Owls recorded
project to
2005; (Dames
(Baeolophus
Biological
impacts
component, Juniper
closer by
suitable
to
and
is the
also
habitat,
of
gleans
include
also
the
construction
abundance.
for north
it
(Dames
habitat
The
it
Portion to
vehicular
declines
Titmouse
Wash Titmouse
Western
after
(Hjertaas A
burrows
the
that
forage
impacts
Owls
and
mammals
to of
juniper
support
crushed
impacts
Burrowing and
airports,
to woodpeckers
suitable
Titmouse
construction which
the
Titmouse
County
1980).
County
uses
potential from be
Jakes once
in
by
Southern
that
the Juniper Wise-Gervais -
Juniper
construction
project,
tend
Appendix
Nye
availability Burrowing route but burrowing urban attributed along in Short-term possibility Widespread occur could Western areas with habitat, While courses, the
Juniper prominent grasslands and The position, made spiders,
Lincoln Terres Potential The Juniper trees
Titmouse. with Final
SWIP Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)
The Ferruginous Hawk is generally an uncommon raptor throughout its range, and wildlife agencies in many states are concerned regarding population trends. Two hundred and forty breeding pairs were documented in Nevada in 7992 (Wheeler 2003), and breeding bird surveys from 1994 to 2003 indicated low densities across their range in Nevada. Population declines were noted for this species in Nevada in the 1990s (Wheeler 2003), and the species is considered vulnerable in the state (NNHP 2004).
The Ferruginous Hawk is a hawk of the plains, inhabiting open, remote, arid prairies, pastures, flatlands, and rolling hills (Wheeler 2003). Throughout its breeding range, the Ferruginous Hawk breeds in open country, including prairies, plains, and badlands. In Nevada, the Ferruginous Hawk breeds in “fragmented, low elevation sagebrush valleys interspersed between Sky Island Mountains” (Wheeler 2003). In Nevada, according to Wheeler (2003), most breeding occurs north of US Highway 50, which, except for the north end of the Egan Range, is outside of the project area. However, the 1994 project EIS (Dames & Moore) identified existing Ferruginous Hawk nesting sites, which were located in areas along the current project alignment, in Butte Valley, Muleshoe Valley, and in the northern end of the White River Valley. Other nearby nests were recorded in the north end of the Seaman Range, and in Cave Valley. Additionally, Ferruginous Hawk habitat has been identified on the east side of Jake’s Valley, on the west side of the White River Valley (in the foothills of the Horse Range), and in the Grant Range. The Ferruginous Hawk is recorded from the KWMA(NDOW, 2000). The Ferruginous Hawk utilizes similar habitats in winter, but at lower elevations and more southerly latitudes including more rural or suburban areas (Wheeler 2003). Nests are usually built high in large trees, but they may also nest on cliffs, banks, buttes, or slopes (Ehrlich et al. 1988), usually with a very wide view. Occasionally, nests are placed on the ground (Wheeler 2003).
Ferruginous Hawks feed largely on small mammals, including prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp., Ammospermophilus spp.), and hares (Lepus spp.), but they willalso eat snakes, lizards, and large insects (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
The Ferruginous Hawk mortality occurs from several natural and artificial sources. Illegal shooting often occurs, primarily during upland game-bird seasons (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Electrocution from utilitypoles and wires is common, however, only for lines 69kV and smaller. Additionally, secondary poisoning may occur to these hawks when they prey upon poisoned pest species (e. g., Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs; Wheeler 2003). Habitat loss due to agricultural development of prairie ecosystems is a concern over the long term (Ohlendorif 1993), and fire suppression has led to encroachment of shrubby growth into prairies, reducing breeding habitat (Wheeler 2003).
The Ferruginous Hawk is quick to vacate its nest when disturbed; this effect may be greater in years of low food availability (White and Thurow 1985). Project construction may have a minimal impact on the Ferruginous Hawk, primarily from minor prey and habitat loss resulting from the clearing of vegetation for project facilities and access roads. A study conducted by the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington, documented use of electrical towers by Ferruginous Hawks as nest supports fWPZ No date).
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-23 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
The Swainson’s Hawk has a very large breeding range in North and Central America, ranging from Alaska to middle Mexico. This is largely a hawk of the Great Plains, but also occurs in varying density west of the Continental Divide (Wheeler 2003). In Nevada, it occupies habitats at elevations up to 8,000 ft (Wheeler 2003). Swainson’s Hawk is considered secure from extinction over most of its large range, but is considered imperiled in Nevada (NNHP 2004).
Swainson’s Hawks typically breed in open terrain with low to moderately high vegetation. Such areas as savannahs, prairies, deserts, open pine woodlands, and agricultural fields are commonly used. Scattered trees must be present for nesting. In Nevada and other arid western states, Swainson’s Hawks are found in irrigated agricultural areas, where alfalfa and short grasses are especially important (Wheeler 2003).
Nests are made from large sticks and twigs, which may be lined with bark, leaves, flowers, down, or feathers (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Approximately 50 percent of nests are reused from year to year, and may be nests abandoned by other species (e.g., magpies and common ravens: Corvidae), (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Wheeler (2003) lists 150 breeding pairs for the state of Nevada for an unlisted year.
Swainson’s Hawks are dietary generalists and eat many vertebrate and invertebrate prey, including rabbits, lizards, snakes, frogs, toads, birds, and large insects (Ehrlich et al. 1988). During their extensive migrations and while on the Argentine wintering grounds grasshoppers make up a large proportion of the diet, supplemented by other insects. Swainson’s Hawks are generally perch and aerial hunters but often use ground pursuit to run down insects (Wheeler J 2003). Pesticide contamination is the largest problem faced by the Swainson’s Hawk (Wheeler 2003). The shooting of roadside individuals also causes losses of numerous birds. Large wintering migration puts the Swainson’s Hawk at risk across many geopolitical boundaries, with greatly differing levels of environmental protection (Wheeler 2003).
Most of Nevada’s summer population of Swainson’s Hawks reside in the northern part of the state outside of the project area, but there is a concentration in southern Lincoln County near the project route (Wheeler 2003), and they are recorded from the KWMA fNDOW 2000). Elsewhere along the line they would be present only as migrants. Potential impacts to Swainson’s Hawk would primarily result from the of prey during the clearing of vegetation associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads, and potential nest tree removal.
Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
The Greater Sage Grouse occurs as a resident throughout the Great Basin (NatureServe 2006). Fewer than 20,000 Greater Sage Grouse occur in Nevada (Braun 1998), where the Nevada Natural History Program considers it a vulnerable species, and the BLM lists it as sensitive (NNHP 2004).
Migration patterns are complex for the Greater Sage Grouse, which can be divided into populations with no migration, one-stage migration, or two-stage migration (NatureServe 2006).
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-24 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 All migrations are of rather short distances. One-stage migrations occur when migrants move ] between 9.3 to 30 miles from a summer to winter range. Two-stage migrants have summer ranges, breeding ranges, and winter ranges. Their movements may total 50 to 62 miles in a year. There also may be altitudinal migrations between and higher to lower elevation from winter to summer (NatureServe 2006).
Greater Sage Grouse are closely tied to sagebrush communities (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Males congregate at leks (strutting grounds), where they periorm stereotyped displays for females prior to mating. As many as 70 or 80 male grouse may congregate in these areas to display and attract female grouse for breeding (Back and Smith 1990). Lekking areas are chosen based on the quality of adjacent nesting and brood-rearing habitat (NatureServe 2006). They tend to be open areas surrounded by sagebrush, often on swales, mounds, or other clearings (NatureServe 2006). Females nest in dense sagebrush cover in areas of high forb abundance. The same areas may be used consecutively for many years (Back and Smith 1990). In some areas the proximityto water may be of importance (NatureServe 2006).
Nests of Greater Sage Grouse are essentially scrapes on the ground, concealed under sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), and are tended by the females. Scrapes are lined with sparse grass and leaves (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
The diet of the Greater Sage Grouse consists largely of flowers and buds from forbs. Sagebrush is an important component, and large proportion of the diet in both fall and winter. Insects are an important component of the diet of the Greater Sage Grouse chicks (NatureServe 2006). Adult diets also contain a small percentage of insects.
Habitat loss has been the major cause of decline for the Greater Sage Grouse. Invasive plant species have been identified as the largest threat, followed by development due to urbanization, wildfire suppression, agriculture, and grazing. Conversion of habitat to agriculture and pastures has eliminated much habitat and many populations, particularly in the Northwest (Back and Smith 1990; Ehrlich et al. 1992).
Greater Sage Grouse leks are known to be present in the project area at several locations along the transmission line route from north of U.S. Highway 50 to the proposed White Pine Energy Station. The 1994 SWIP EIS (Dames & Moore) listed sage grouse strutting and wintering grounds at White Sage Wash in the Steptoe Valley, and brooding areas near Sunnyside and Reardan’s Ranch in the White River Valley. In surveys conducted for this project in the spring of 2006, 25 males were observed in the Butte/Buck/White Pine Population Management Unit (PMU), 25 males in the South Butte Valley Complex, 16 males in the White River Valley Complex, 38 males in the Ellison Creek Complex, and 53 males in the West Schell Complex, for a total of 132 individuals.
Potential impacts to the Greater Sage Grouse from the construction of the transmission line could include loss of nests with eggs or young, loss of nesting habitat, loss of forage and insect prey, and increased potential for colonization by invasive plant species resulting from ground disturbing activities associated with clearing of vegetation for construction of project facilities and access roads. New access roads could increase public access to areas that support the Greater Sage Grouse. Access roads, spurs and towers could be placed in grouse strutting or wintering grounds, and towers could provide additional hunting perches for sage grouse predators, particularly Golden Eagles (Back and Smith 1990).
FinalAppendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-25 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 it
a
is
in
or
of
as
far
25
the
the the
The
and
end flats
is
Pine EPG 2007
wide
Tern,
as
by
2000). 2,
threats a
2001).
vehicle (Terres
National nests
salt
than
beaches National
activities
canes primarily
capturing
habitat
Tern
on
south
winters July
Segment) or
woodland. include
White
of
project,
2000). migration
food Black
south
1980).
main
crayfish
undergrowth
sand
the
as
1988; the
and construction
ocean and
mud
(NDOW the
USFWS
greater
as
feeds Black
among
in
The could
of
It
on
suitable
al.
the
riparian During for disturbing generally
off-highway or Terres
dry States,
Nye
Dense
beach
used
(NDOW
Pahranagat
woodlands,
and
The
West,
such
et
of
1988;
tracts
Population
in
destruction
lines 1980).
and
and be KWMA
from
fish,
the in
vicinity
1998). Impacts
1988;
al. the
where
1980).
United habitat
areas.
ground
ground
at
and
tide in
et al. the tracts
the
1988).
KWMA
including
to
Ehrlich could
result hollow
small
in et
the Terres
arid
Distinct
deciduous (AOU
the
route Meadows, roads.
al.
nesting
beaches
route
the
Terres
on
from large
that
suitable
and
et
northern
invertebrates
withdrawal,
U.S. small
at
limited (Ehrlich
would
1998;
1988;
of
rivers
moist, Colorado
a above
counties, (Ehrlich
species
the
sandy
access
project be
al. nests
Murphy
disturbance in 1998; project
otherwise that
10
Cuckoos
and sites
nivosus) and
et
at
Ehrlich
fish
to this
and
in
areas
(AQU
relatively with and
recorded
sand
the the
in
that
mollusks,
of
recorded (Western
would breed
(AQU
freshwater is
nest
and
dry
scraping lakes
invertebrates
Utah,
groundwater
near species
1998;
of
of KWMA
fEhrlich limited along
of
ponds
by A-26
Canada require
also
facilities
corridors
sensitive been
species
of
water this Plover
recorded
of
Cuckoo to
Yellow-billed
associated
presence
insects,
loss
is
1992).
(AOU
and
areas
for
alexandrinus water
present
the
Nevada, has
nests
of
Tern
estuaries,
crustaceans,
(spans)
al.
present
selection
the is project
americanus)
much
inconsequential.
riparian
the
Snowy
invertebrates,
et
of
appear Chile
and
Plover level
of be
lakes,
the
Western and
prefers
bays,
particularly above
encroachment,
generally
Black
Tern
terrestrial
downstream
it in
along
northern
worms, roads.
is low Assessment
crosses
Yellow-billed
shorebird
anticipated
are
edge
and
a
marine
just
and
could
(Ehrlich
nigeñ
The
(Charadrius
Western
central
Snowy 2006),
birds,
Coccyzus
rivers,
Black urban
the
throughout
(
considered
Cuckoos
meadow-inhabiting
the
factor
winter reported
of
willow,
Plover
is
the KWMA,
of
small such
access
project
They
construction
and
the
insects, In Biological
impacts
is
wet
to
Plover
aquatic
Plover
near
California,
Valley.
and
the
nesting for the have the
colonies the
on including breeds and
include
The
or
Western
seacoasts
vegetation
on
Cuckoo Portion to
Peru
Snowy
or
1996).
impacts A there
2002).
(Chlidonias
important
sand the
margins with
Tern prey
as
since
and
(NatureServe minimal
Snowy
impacts
feeds Snowy
Yellow-billed
for
shore
populations along habitat
1980).
an
studies
Refuge,
eggs Steptoe
of
It
wet
species facilities
the breeding
Tern
Since
aquatic Southern
are
in
be - of
fAGFD
Black
Western
cottonwood Appendix
south
south-central
the
this
Nevada,
1980). (Terres In Potential along prey beach present. Geographic loss use counties associated potential birds. Black The Western Western to colonial, as appears mollusks, The other Suitable However, of far variety Wildlife
project there may Several
Yellow-billed Final Western with
Western SWIP a
to
or
11
for
on
use
also this
age. with
This feet from may
EPG
2007
to prey,
on More
nest,
2001;
(AQU
Lake,
known
Terres
of
9 areas, Prairie 2,
of
15
(Ehrlich
(Ehrlich
humidity
(Laymon
Cuckoos
Cuckoos
may
horizontal
own
July
range areas rangeland,
large of (Center impacts
habitat 1988).
Cuckoos The
after
migration
days 1998;
species
least
Yellow-billed usually
on
period
targets.
they
8
al. riparian
records
acres
Diversity
their
at any Maynard habitat
species
Argentina
are
The
June moist
to et
about
hatch
but
of
heights 2003).
few
during
5
100
nests
near
in
in
because
Black-billed have relatively
a
open
Western
at (Laymon Yellow-billed
insect
area.
nests
located
grasslands,
per
which Nest
nest
of
construct are
occasional
known stick Yellow-billed
northern
with
(Ehrlich the
Biological
the
water
range.
are
would
is prefer facing The
to
Frogs Wheeler
not
in for 1998). fledge
northwest
are
may
grounds
pairs
to
for
vegetation,
eggs,
the
commingle there
it
1980).
some
do nests particularly
incubation/nestling
26
perennial of
Nests
Little
Tree They
date;
together
project
south
unkempt
birds always outbreaks
from
Lake,
in
close
to
large
ground.
habitat
While
They
1
No
birds’
and
(Center
(Laymon this
parts
Nestlings
Terres
cliffs.
anywhere
breeding
with
leading
nest
the
five
occur
however,
2001).
1998).
other
migration
areas
to
insects populations
feet
from
combined
America
the other
1988).
nesting Pratt,
habitats
2003).
their
construct
to but 1988;
from
1998).
fall
in
unlikely
20
one
al.
species
2003);
higher,
southern
nestlings Pahranagat
coincide al. with
on
is
sheltered and
or
et Cuckoos
range
Laymon open Diversity
South
lay
is
It
to U.S., more
the
et They
A-27
western
the
eggs on
gleaning
shortest suitable
and
below
Grasshoppers,
of
(Wheeler or
in
Laymon
of very
restricted
Lower
Polite
by
arrive
spring and
rearing
area.
the
1988; Wheeler
timed
in (Ehrlich
extra
of
1998).
feet
be
crack, eastern northern
(Ehrlich
densities Cuckoos
water
be
al.
fecundity
Biological
1988;
and
a
areas
records
40
1998;
date; average have
of
Yellow-billed Cicadas,
et
during exclusively
the
project in
may
produced
place
found
al. for eastern
primarily to
may
from
Cuckoos
any
No
vicinity
in
or
and
be
et
eggs
Assessment
the
Laymon
nesting
30
and
where nesting
the
almost
vegetation
(Dawson
availability winter (Ehrlich may
forage Pratt,
Cuckoos
embankments
feet, mexicanus)
presence
and no Katydids,
from (Center
Cuckoo. season
Yellow-billed typically
in cuckoos
locations
whether
include
2001).
2001;
is
(Ehrlich
98 nest Biological wintering. usually
2001).
the
are and
hatching
year
overhung,
prey not
or
to
areas
miles
common
Falco
the
Yellow-billed
is
( parasitism
shrubby
some
2001). insects
USFWS2001).
of
and
These
3
earthen
per
for
Portion
to
Cuckoos Cuckoos
species.
breeding
in
there
A
at territorial,
Polite Falcon in
does
unknown USFWS
eiythropha!mus)
(rarely)
require
that
most Diversity
vegetation
(USFWS
Caterpillars,
known
nest
is Yellow-billed
size.
Yellow-billed
1998; brood
to flying is
incubation
bird and
peaks
Falcon
It
is
not
migration
Their
ground often
in
USFWS
Southern Western
1988;
1988;
of
one -
ledge
Prairie
agricultural project
loosely
nesting tie
Appendix
feet
any
present
al.
al.
does
1998; 1980). requirements Laymon Most Biological acres limbs, 1998). including are During (Coccyzus 4.3 days during capture et practice practice Yellow-billed Western for approximately Cuckoo be broadleaf than wintering Prai Yellow-billed Falcon The Western above and rock The it et bird Final
SWIP
J a
is
is
al.
the
are
and this and
into
their EPG
from 2007
plant
been
et
Jay
Prairie
1988). 2,
seeds,
worms, roads. Alaska,
species nesting
Sandhill
Nevada.
primarily
southern
(Wheeler
habitat
move
al.
during July
have
agricultural
The
Falcon this edges, the
occasionally
the
impacts nuts,
foliage,
and et
Ehrlich in
Pinyon 1951).
however,
construct
prey,
access
may
years central
approaching
insects, they
that
and
al.
omnivorous,
to
of river
northern
pine
pass.
suitable
The
While during species Prairie but
et 1980).
and
Coast 1998; and
forage
as
on
many
Crane,
(Ehrlich minimal
likely
will
where al.
quite
and
the
sticks
prey
far is
for
et birds
1998).
where variety
tortoise, herbaceous
to they
Martin
West
1998).
It
line (AQU
of
a as
sometimes
season,
facilities
and
times
ground
western
150
invertebrates,
the
KWMA,
Sandhill
ponds,
at
(AOU
seasons
Terres
1988; loss desert
to
therefore
(AQU
the
is
annually
impacts
takes
the
from rocks
States the
season Valley.
to
al. migration project
it
flocks,
migration Nevada.
up
along
on
consuming
breeding
aquatic
et even
of
1988; lakes,
of
for
of and
or
soil,
Nevada
rice,
transmission
Florida
reused al.
the
of
breed
large
United
roads.
during
limited south
Refuge,
During
Steptoe
Potential
et
migration, most
be
the
breeding
in
trees
nonbreeding
typically (Ehrlich
be corn, habitat
reptiles, hunter
including
the
in
during
route fall
together the
may
southern
groupings of
Cranes
access
and
construction margins
2000). southern
Wildlife
western
(Ehrich
which
2003).
A-28
occur or
as
eater,
birds,
Columbia feed
aerial
would
foods
wheat,
end
and the
after
eyrie
the
suitable
grasslands.
and
habitat
throughout
of
project
mammals
as
scrape
line in
and
smaller
plant of
An
Jays
south
Sandhill
(NDOW
from
National spring
or
and
British breeding
south
through
the
nestlings
Wheeler
marshes,
typically
far
such small
into
States
facilities
variety
habitats
the south
the
perch
areas
as
and
2003).
nest,
Pinyon
fields
1988).
in
and
along 1998;
KWMA a areas
cyanocephalus)
medium-sized
year-round Jays
during Assessment
Gulf
wide
resulting
and
grains
southern
tundra, both
to
a
project
pinyon-juniper
eggs and
the
transmission
avian Pahranagat
the breeds
both
canadensis]
in
eggs, include
(AQU 1988).
occur
many and
for
found
Wheeler
consolidate
sagebrush bird
ground-gleaning
is take adjacent
to
the
Pinyon
old the small
is
from Biological
al. (Dawson in
present Jay
species
not
a
and
coastal inhabit
2000), in
Canada, or
on
of at
may
but
inhabits
et
(Grus
an the
roots,
1998;
east
be
also of
this
as Portion
species
prairies to
Gymnorhinus
and
birds
does
Falcon
from
winter ( A
oak,
Jay
Falcon
Pinyon insects
for
but
vegetation
uses
present forage
birds,
recorded
(NDOW
Crane wet
Cranes primarily
may
Cranes
such
much
of
Jay fEhrlich
tubers,
the
States
is
be
is
The
or
young Southern
winter
scrub
(Dawson flying
Prairie
project - insects,
Prairie
Pinyon
construction Appendix either
opportunistically
gregarious
nyon
Falcon mammals, large United Sandhill but clearing Sandhill eyrie 2003). the Crane recorded The The would through They Sandhill present, P1 1988). frequently fields shoots, will frogs, species anticipated
The pine, During a The season Final
thousand fruit, SWIP
J ] N Pinyon Jays are likelyto occur anywhere within the project area where piñon-juniper habitat is ] present, such as where the line passes through the east foothills of the White Pine Range, and the Egan Range at the north end of the transmission line and at the substation site. Potential impacts to the Pinyon Jay could include the loss of eggs and/or nestlings, and the loss of forage plants associated with removal of trees from the right-of-way. Minimal impacts are anticipated including the clearing of vegetation associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads.
Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens)
The Yellow-Breasted Chat inhabits shrubland and wooded vegetation communities, and riparian corridors, especially heavily forested areas. Breeding areas include second growth, shrubby old pastures, thickets, bushy areas, scrub, woodland undergrowth, thickets with few tall trees and fence rows, as well as low wet places near streams, pond edges, or swamps. They commonly chooses sites close to human habitation. In non-breeding areas of Nevada (central/southeastern portions), the chat commonly selects territories in young, second-growth forest and scrub (Dennis 1958; Morse 1989; Thompson and Nolan 1973).
The Yellow-Breasted Chat is fairly common throughout North America, but population trends vary among regions. In Nevada, the species is classified as vulnerable. The main threats include the loss of habitat due to successional changes and clearings of land for agricultural or residential development. Like so many other songbird species, brown-headed cowbirds frequently parasitize chat nests, lowering the reproductive success of the nest. In the summer months, Yellow-Breasted Chat eat a variety of insects, but add small fruits to their diet in late summer and winter (Stiles and Skutch 1989).
Potential impacts to breeding Yellow-Breasted Chats could include the loss of eggs or young in nests and the loss of forage plants associated with removal of trees from the right-of-way. Vegetation removal could also impact habitat and prey species used by chats. They are recorded in the KWMA (NDOW 2000). Much of the project area is located in nonbreeding, migrating habitat for the Yellow-Breasted Chat; and limited wetland areas would be spanned, therefore very few impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
The Loggerhead Shrike is widely distributed across the United States (National Geographic 2002; NatureServe 2006). They breed as far south as the states of Oaxaca and Veracruz in Mexico (AQU 1998). Loggerhead Shrikes occur as non-breeding residents south from the Rio Grande along the gulf coast of Mexico (NatureServe 2006), and as permanent residents in most of Nevada. The Loggerhead Shrike winters throughout the southern United States south into southern Mexico (AQU 1998; NatureServe 2006).
Loggerhead Shrikes breed in open fields and countryside with scattered trees, in open woodlands, and in desertscrub and other scrublands (AOU 1998; Ehrlich et al 1988). In the western U.S., rolling terrain in rural or agricultural areas with low-growing grasses and shrubs, including blackbrush, creosote bush, and sagebrush is the most often occupied habitat (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Loggerhead Shrikes occur in all counties of Nevada (NatureServe 2006). Loggerhead Shrikes nest earlier in the year than most passerines, and both sexes
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-29 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 construct well-built cup nests of twigs, forbs, and bark, lined with finer materials. Nests are usually located below the crowns of tree crotches or on large branches (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Loggerhead Shrikes feed primarily on large insects, but they may frequently eat small birds, mice, lizards, amphibians, carrion, and other invertebrates depending on their availability (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Loggerhead Shrikes use short-term food hoarding, from which males may feed brooding females or females may feed fledglings (Ehrlich et al. 1988). These birds are also known for their habit of impaling prey conspicuously on barbed wire or cactus spines (Ehrlich et al. 1988), leading to their colloquial name “butcher birds.” Loggerhead Shrikes use aerial pursuit to chase down prey and, lacking strong raptorial talons, use their beak to kill or stun prey (Ehrlich 1988).
Populations of the Loggerhead Shrikes appear to be declining almost everywhere throughout its range, with possible causes being habitat loss and pesticides (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Declines have been widespread even where suitable open habitat remains. Thus, pesticides and high predation rates near roads remain the most likely, if yet unproven, causes. The Loggerhead Shrike is relatively common in the lower elevations of Nevada, and the entire project area is within its breeding range (Dames & Moore 1994; NGS 2002). The Loggerhead Shrike is recorded in the KWMA(NDOW 2000).
Impacts to the Loggerhead Shrike could include the loss of eggs or young in nests, ifvegetation containing nests are removed for the construction of project facilities and access roads. Vegetation removal could also impact nesting habitats and prey species used by Loggerhead Shrikes.
Black Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte atrata)
The Black Rosy-Finch breeds in the mountains from central Idaho, southwestern and south- central Montana, and northwestern and north-central Wyoming, south to northeastern and east- central Nevada and central Utah (AOU 1998). They occur as non-breeding residents in central Idaho and western and south-eastern Wyoming, south to eastern California, southern Nevada, northern Arizona, and northern New Mexico (AQU 1998).
Black Rosy-Finches occupy barren, rocky, or grassy areas and cliffs among glaciers or above timberline, but at lower elevations within their range, they occupy open fields, cultivated lands, and brushy areas, frequently around human habitation (AOU 1998). Occasionally, they roost in mine shafts or other protected habitats. They lay four to five pear-shaped eggs beginning in June through July. The female incubates the eggs for approximately 12 tol4 days. When the young leave the nest at about 20 days old, they begin to cluster in large flocks of several hundreds at higher elevations until around October and November, at which time they move down into the lower elevations of valleys and deserts (Terres 1980).
Black Rosy-Finches feed primarily on seeds on the ground, but during spring they may eat wind-transported insects, as well as insects from vegetation, in the breeding season. Populations of this species appear to be secure. It has moderate numbers of occurrences, limited range, and is fairly numerous within their range. Nevada provides home to both breeding and wintering Black Rosy-Finches, and the entire transmission line route is located within both breeding and wintering ranges of the species (NatureServe 2006; Terres 1980). According to NDW (1999), Black Rosy-Finches are considered tare during the winter months (December —
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-30 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 February) in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties. In White Pine County they are considered } common from June through August and uncommon the rest of the year.
Impacts to the Black Rosy-Finch could include the loss of eggs or young in nests, if vegetation that contained nests is removed for construction of project facilities and access roads. Vegetation removal could also impact nesting habitat and prey species used by Rosy-Finches.
Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)
The Lewis’ Woodpecker is named after Meriwether Lewis, leader of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1803-06, who first observed the bird in 1806, near Kamiah, Idaho. This is truly a western bird, found primarily west of Colorado to the Pacific and from southwestern British Columbia to northwestern Mexico (Terres 1980). According to NDOW (1999), Lewis’ Woodpeckers are considered uncommon during the spring and fall in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. In White Pine County they are considered common during the spring, summer, and fall.
Lewis’ Woodpeckers breed most commonly in open ponderosa pine forests and frequently in logged or burned coniferous forests, piñon-juniper groves of mountains, open cottonwood groves along streams, and near open meadows and marshlands. Nesting woodpeckers are closely associated with open stands of ponderosa pines and riparian woodlands with a brushy understory. Snags are an important component to nesting woodpeckers because they use them for perching and sometimes nesting (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). They commonly nest in — abandoned nest holes constructed by other birds, in particular, large woodpeckers, but on occasion, they willconstruct their own cavities in trunks or large branches of dead or dying trees J (Tobalske 1997).
At lower elevations, the Lewis’ Woodpecker begins to lay and incubate eggs in mid-April,with a peak in May. They typically lay six to seven eggs and both sexes incubate for approximately 12 to 16 days (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Both male and female feed the nestlings (almost exclusively insects), but the male broods the young at night. In the summer, Lewis’ Woodpeckers feed primarily on adult emergent insects, such as ants, beetles, flies, grasshoppers, caterpillars, and mayflies. As winter approaches, their diet includes ripe fruit, and nuts. They will continue to feed on insects year-round as long as they are available. This woodpecker species is rather unique in that it does not bore for insects but rather catches insects from tree branches, in the air, and on the ground (NatureServe 2006).
Currently, populations of the Lewis’ Woodpecker appear to be secure; however, breeding bird surveys and Christmas Bird Counts have reported gradual declines rangewide. According to these census reports, populations tend to be scattered and irregular and are considered rare, uncommon, or irregularly common throughout its range (NatureServe 2006). It appears that nearly 60 percent or more of the Lewis’Woodpecker has declined since the 1960s. The reasons for the decline may be the loss of nesting sites due to logging, urban and residential development, and the degradation of riparian habitat by drought and overgrazing. As populations stabilize, some are still in danger of decline. It has been suggested that populations in riparian habitats in arid regions continue to be vulnerable to drought, overgrazing, and other habitat degradations (NatureServe 2006).
FinalAppendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-31 EPG SWIP- Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Impacts to the Lewis’Woodpecker could include the loss of eggs or young in nests, ifvegetation ) containing nests are removed for the construction of the project facilities and access roads. Vegetation removal (especially snags and plants present along riparian corridors) could impact nesting habitat and prey species used by the woodpecker.
Long-Rilied Curlew (Numenius americanus)
The Long-Billed Curlew is primarily a grassland species. It once flourished throughout the grasslands in the West, east to the prairies of southern Wisconsin and illinois, but disappeared from many places during the 1930s due to rapid agricultural development. It was nearly extirpated in some states due to late-season hunting pressure. Today, the Long-Billed Curlew breeds in southern British Columbia, southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, south to eastern Washington, northeastern California, north-central Nevada, Utah, southern Colorado, New Mexico, and northern Texas, east to southwestern Kansas. it is a breeding resident in northern Nevada (NatureServe 2006), and nests in Steptoe Valley, Spring Valley, and Bassett Creek Wetlands in White Pine County.
While migrating, Long-Billed Curlews visit shores, lakes, rivers, and marshes to feed on crayfish, toads, and snails. Occasionally, they eat berries on the prairies, grasshoppers, beetles, and caterpillars. As opportunistic feeders they take advantage of a variety of food items made available at different locations as well as seasonal food. They are efficient at finding food by picking insects and berries from the ground or water probing with their bill in sand or mud in or near shallow water (Terres 1980).
Nesting habitats almost always includes prairies or grassy meadows, generally near water. Nest sites are chosen on the ground, usually in flat areas concealed by short grass. Sometimes Long-Billed Curlew chooses more irregular places near rocks or other features. Egg laying begins around April at lower elevations, and in May in colder climates, such as Canada. Clutch sizes range from 3 to 5 eggs, which are laid over a period of 4 to 7 days. Incubation lasts 29 to 30 days, by both sexes. Ifthe clutch is lost, they will not renest in the same season. The adult females depart the nest site first when young are 2 to 3 weeks old. Adult males continue caring for the young until they fledge, at approximately 41 to 45 days old (NatureServe 2006).
impacts to the Long-Billed Curlew could include the loss of eggs or young in nests, ifvegetation was removed for the construction of the project facilities and access roads. Vegetation removal (especially grasses) could impact nesting habitat and prey species used by curlews. The Long- Billed Curlew is recorded in the KWMA(NDOW 2000).
Flammulated Owl (Otus ilammeolus)
The Flammulated Owl is primarily a mature forest and woodland species. It is found in montane forests, mainly within the open ponderosa pine association, and occasionally in aspen- dominated habitats (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). It breeds locally from southern British Columbia, western Montana, and northern Colorado, south to southern California, southern Arizona, southern New Mexico, western Texas, southeastern Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and central Mexico. Nevada provides habitat for small populations of resident breeding birds in small patchy mountainous areas throughout the state. According to NDOW (1999), the Flammulated Owl is considered uncommon year-round in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. In White Pine
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-32 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 County the species is considered uncommon during the spring, summer, and fall, and absent ) from northeastern Nevada during the winter. It has been recorded in the KWMA(NDOW 2000). Breeding habitats of the Flammulated Owl include montane forest, usually open conifer forests containing pine (preferably yellow pine and Jeffrey pine), with some brush or saplings (NatureServe 2006). Standing snags and/or hollow trees appear to be an important primary constituent element in the owls habitat. Nests are commonly selected in abandoned tree cavities made by Pileated Woodpeckers, sapsuckers, or other large primary cavity nesters. The combination of old mature trees with high density of snags, scattered thickets of shrubs and saplings, and adjacent clearings (for maneuvering during hunting) is important to the owl for nesting, foraging, roosting, and migrating. The yellow pine and and/or Douglas fit are preferred by the owl, because they are closely associated with abundant sources of lepidopteran prey, namely moths and larval stages of butterflies. They also feed on beetles, spiders, grasshoppers, crickets, ants, scorpions, and occasionally small birds or mammals.
The Flammulated Owl roosts in dense vegetation, thickets, mistletoe, and sometimes in cavities or on branches very close to the trunks of fir or pine trees. During migration, it visits the wooded and open areas of lowlands and mountains, including riparian areas (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005; NatureServe 2006; Terres 1980). Flammulated Owls are predators, but they ate also prey for other raptor species, including Great-Horned Owls and accipiter species, such as Sharp- Shined Hawks (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooper,), and Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis).
Flammulated Owls begin laying eggs by early May to late June, depending on elevation and location within their breeding range. Three to four (sometimes two) white eggs are laid in a nest lined with wooden chips and feathers. Fledglings generally leave the nest by late June to early ) August.
Known natural and human-caused threats to the species, coupled with their natural low reproductive rate, unknown dispersal and demographics, and unknown adult survivorship, make this species vulnerable to change because populations may be slow to recover; therefore, conservation of this species would involve long-term planning and management (NatureServe 2006).
Potential impacts to the Flammulated Owl are expected to be minimal. This species rarely nests in pinyon-juniper associations; however, there is a slight possibility the project could include loss of eggs or young in nests, if trees that contained nests are removed for the construction of project facilities and access roads. Vegetation removal (especially snags and mature trees on ridges and upper slopes) could impact the owl’s nesting habitat and prey species.
Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens]
Phainopeplas are generally secure over their range, but are considered by the NNHP as imperiled as breeding residents, where they occur in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties (NNHP 2006). Phainopeplas occur in western, central, and southern California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, southwestern New Mexico, southwestern Texas, and most of southern Arizona, south into Sonora. central mainland Mexico, and Baja California (NatureServe 2006). The phainopepla is recorded in the KWMA(NDOW2000).
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-33 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 N Phainopeplas are birds of the warmer North American deserts, where they occupy desert scrub; mesquite (Prosopis spp.), juniper (Juniperus spp.) and oak (Quercus spp.) woodlands; tall ) brush; riparian woodlands; and orchards. They are highly dependent on fruiting mistletoe (Phoradendron spp.) for food, and infested catclaw acacia (Acacia greggh) and mesquite woodlands are prime habitats (Hiatt and Boone 2003). In Nevada, they typically occupy dry washes (perhaps because of the distribution of mistletoe-infested trees and shrubs), and habitats at higher elevations (to 4265 feet; Russell and Monson 1998) in pinyon-juniper associations (Hiatt and Boone 2003).
The Phainopepla feeds on a variety of berries and insects, with mistletoe berries comprising
much of its diet (NatureServe 2006). It also feeds on juniper, elderberry (Sambucus spp.), grape (Vitus sp.), buckthorn (Rhamnaceae), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolius), and other berries when available (NatureServe 2006). When resources are abundant, territory size is small, averaging 0.4 hectare (ha) in the deserts and 0.003 ha in woodlands (Walsberg 1977 in NatureServe 2006). Phainopeplas forage for insects in typical flycatcher fashion, repeatedly launching out from a high perch to retrieve insects and returning to the perch to eat. Insectivory is more common during breeding season than during the winter (Hiatt and Boone 2003).
Nests are built mostly by the male Phainopepla, from February through July (Hiatt and Boone 2003). The small cup nest is constructed from twigs, flowers, leaves, and spider silk, and lined with hair and down (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Nests are often located in upright crotches of mistletoe, but may also be found in a palo verde (Parkinsonia spp.), or other trees from four to 13.5 feet above the ground, in a well-shaded areas (Merlin 2001). If two or more nests are produced in a year, the first nest of the year is usually produced in low desertscrub or mesquite habitat. As warmer weather approaches, some Phainopeplas move to higher elevations into pinyon-juniper or oak forests where they willnest a second time (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
The primary threats to the species are habitat loss from development, cutting of mesquite, and the removal of mistletoe from trees in urban areas. In the Las Vegas area, populations have declined due to the spread of urbanization and subsequent loss of mesquite woodlands (Hiatt and Boone 2003). Phainopeplas are occasional cowbird hosts (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Potential impacts to Phainopeplas could include loss of eggs or young in nests, nesting habitat, and mistletoe and other food sources from the clearing of vegetation for the construction of project facilities and access roads.
Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus)
The Vesper Sparrow can be found in grassland, prairie, savanna, arid scrub, and woodland clearings (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Vesper Sparrows feed on arthropods, grass and forb seeds, and waste grain (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Terres 1980). Nests are constructed in small depressions in the ground, among grasses or other vegetation that provides visual cover for the nest (Terres 1980). Much of the proposed transmission line route crosses areas of desert scrub as well as Great Basin/Plains Grasslands. Vesper Sparrows may be present in Great Basin desertscrub and Great Basin/Plains Grassland as a breeding species in Lincoln and White Pine counties. In winter they are likely to be encountered in the lowland deserts of Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-34 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Potential impacts to Vesper Sparrows could include the loss of eggs, young, food sources, and nesting habitat resulting from the clearing of vegetation activities for the construction of project ] facilities and access roads.
Red-Naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis)
The Red-Naped Sapsucker was given its name for the prominent red patch on the back of its head or “nape.” The throat is always red in males and nearly so in females, which helps distinguish it from a close relative, the Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker (S. varius).
The breeding range of the Red-Naped Sapsucker includes the Rocky Mountain region from central and southeastern British Columbia, west-central and southeastern Alberta, southwestern Saskatchewan, western and central Montana, and southwestern South Dakota south, east of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada, to east-central California, southern Nevada, central Arizona, southern New Mexico, extreme western Texas, to southwestern South Dakota (AQU 1998). According to the NDOW (1999), the Red-Naped Sapsucker is considered common year-round in southern Nevada and uncommon during the winter months in northeastern Nevada.
Breeding Red-Naped Sapsuckers occupy coniferous forests that include primarily aspen and other hardwoods. According to Corman and Wise-Gervais (2005), 67 percent of all Red-Naped Sapsucker atlas records in Arizona occurred in mixed conifer forests with adjacent montane drainages. The sap-producing hardwoods are the mainstay of the bird’s diet and nesting habitat. Winkler et al. (1995) reports breeding birds at 9,500 feet in elevation. Few records exist of breeding birds at lower elevations in oak or pine-oak forests (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Red-Naped Sapsuckers reach their breeding grounds from March through May, and migrate to J winter sites in September (Winkler et al. 1995).
Red-Naped Sapsuckers are true woodpeckers, thus are primary cavity excavators. Holes are made in aspen, birch, larch, or other trees. Many holes may be made in a year, but the cavity used for breeding may be one made in a previous year. They generally choose dead trees in which to construct the nest cavity, probably because it reduces excavation labor and time. According to Corman and Wise-Gervais (2005), the bird’s primary threat in Arizona is the gradual decline of mature aspen stands as well as the loss of nearby willow-alder groves adjacent to water sources. This is probably true for Nevada as well.
There would be no impacts to breeding Red-Naped Sapsuckers because nesting habitat does not exist within the transmission corridor. However, impacts to wintering habitat would include removal of snags and mature trees for construction of project facilities and access roads.
Crissal Thrasher (Toxostoma crissale)
The Crissal Thrasher is a resident of the southwestern United States at lower elevations from southern California north to southern lnyo County, as far north as southern Nevada and extreme southwest Utah, south into Mexico in central Sonora and Chihuahua, and locally in the Mexican Plateau as far as central Mexico (AQU 1998).
The Crissal Thrasher is quite secretive by habit, and may be found in riparian thickets and among dense vegetation, often mesquite or saitbush, in arid lowland and montane scrub (AQU
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-35 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 a is of and that tree EPG they year 2007 on other other rocks, above lizards 1999). mostly slopes at baking During 2, natural nesting (NNHP all nesting records of beetles, shrubby Vireo grasses summer of desert few as attractive providing dry July feet a which for the construction (Dobkin and and that as associations, elephant 1965). range Gray saddled edge those less 6.6 occupy leaves, such young, (NDOW and contents the of counties to coastal or to breeding 1980). fact be mountains arid, well the prefers or The fibers, looking spring (Bent to home ground at bark, 1.6 Nye the as provides the Vireos winter during semi in the insects, long the similar eggs Vireo higher species stomach (Terres tend and their oak-juniper shrubs, 2005). the often from forbs, vertebrates ground incidental of Gray in towhee hot, in which the are of and a one Gray and during winter soil, of mostly above However, the but removal predation, of loss shrubs small during in grass like Lincoln, heights found date]). the (NDOW The or remain prefers Vireos of eats feet near 1985). at the in component fruit from thickets prey grasses [No state overstory, also foothills or will but common Nevada, Clark, in but trees the ground Gray for eight forb non-breeding managed. an trees the vegetation in on fine of Vireo (Ryser of to on were piñon-juniper birds the include dig 1980). fairly protection Thrasher occasionally and barren vegetation. composed and nests with to of from with two poorly range, forks Granhoim found insects, Gray breeding, southern include Nests and if bill could A-36 primarily of its Nevada grass of Insects entirely the scratch are (Terres for Crissal pairs choose and nests, the thermal grapes, lined it’s shrubs in shrubby absent usually in considered 1988). or may cup The most habitat chaparral. small and feeds associated wild is 1998). central uses and low, Vireos almost Across “parched Mated vireos al. Dobkin respect bowl-shaped It twig habitats Thrasher in tree, also and protects and and as nest comprised and twigs degradation et deep fall, It 2006). of cocoons, 2002). Vireo this roads. feed Gray is 268). includes 1988; 1980). sources among in Assessment the sites small Monson from 1980). forked predators, and Crissal diet (1965) a NGS al. breeding a Gray berries habitat Ehrlich variety food (page Vireos constructs mesquite, Mountains and et access of rounded, range preferred Chaparral to a hung rocky the the vireos Nevada, the from Terres of during insects Bent wild from Terres webs Biological of of 1988; vicinioñ insectivorous in to and NatureServe 1965; Gray by lead for The trunk is grasshoppers. uses the loss rim al. often heat...” whereas, date]; (Ehrlich Portion to some Toiyabe among (Russell area 1988; 1988). et season Vireo breeding the Thrasher can construct A the spider the and are 1992, Nevada, ( (Bent al. al. [No Vireo protection the Vireo impacts litter facilities elements sp.) elements by Mexico, uncommon habitat. forages piñon-juniper, et et that and near scrub, and they or Their it described unique searing project in Southern Ehrlich Vireo Vireos from - (Bates Crissal key key Gray Gray is Appendix ground breeding uses the southern the project In Potential In (Bursera habitat, Gray and Gray months, 1998; areas, in desert Sonora, exist (Ehrlich (Ehrlich time branch of suspend caterpillars, the Final invertebrates, Granholm where the vireos; plants, The The 2006). structure, fibers, The to The found SWIP The foraging
]
- J and forbs are naturally sparse in this habitat type also makes Chaparral more vulnerable to J overuse when uses are focused here. Fire is an agent that can cause dramatic and undesirable shifts in vegetation and community health in many other habitats, but chaparral is resilient and fire is an important element of regeneration and perpetuation (NDOW 2005).
The clearing of shrub cover for urban developments, alteration of fire regimes, fragmentation due to OHV use, and disturbance by cattle grazing may have a minimal affect on breeding vireos. Die-offs of plants during droughts and subsequent insect infestations may also be of concern (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005).
Potential impacts to the Gray Vireo from the construction of the transmission line could include loss of eggs or young, nesting habitat, and food sources resulting from the clearing of vegetation during the construction of project facilities and access roads.
3. REPTILES
Banded Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum)
Gila Monsters (Heleoderma suspectum) are named primarily for their ferocious appearance and large size (for a lizard) (Brown and Carmony 1991). With an elongated body, robust tail, large, flattened head protruding from a short neck, short spindly legs, and feet with five toes of nearly equal length, there is little mistake in their identification (Brown and Carmony 1991). The Gila Monster occurs from southern Nevada and extreme southwestern Utah west to southern California, through Arizona south to northern Sinaloa, Mexico (Beck 2005; Stebbins 2003). } Generally, Gila Monsters occur as peripheral populations in California, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico, with the bulk of its range in Arizona. The Banded Gila Monster (H. suspectum cinctum) is found in western Arizona, southern Nevada, a small part of southeastern California, and extreme southwestern Utah, whereas the nominate subspecies (Heloderma Suspectum Suspectum) occurs throughout the rest of its range. In Nevada, the species occurs in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties (NNHP 2006). Gila Monsters are one of two venomous lizards in the world.
The Gila Monster is most common from sea level to approximately 4,100 feet (Beck 2005). The densest populations are in Sonoran desertscrub (Arizona Upland subdivision) and semi-desert grassland, but Gila Monsters also occur in pine-oak forest, tropical deciduous forest, and thorn forest, with specific vegetative communities including cottonwood-willow riparian, mesquite bosque, and mixed riparian scrub, and Mojave desertscrub (BISON2004c). Gila Monsters seem to prefer undulating rocky foothills, bajadas, and canyons, and tend to avoid open sandy plains (Beck 2005).
Gila Monsters use a “search and dig” strategy to hunt for prey, and have a varied diet that includes newborn rodents and rabbits, lizards, ground-nesting birds, carrion, and eggs from birds and reptiles (Beck 2005; BISON 2004c; lvanyi et al. 2000; Lowe et al. 1986), and are an important predator of Desert Tortoise nests (Stitt et al. 2003). Adult Gila Monsters take in up to 35 percent of their body weight at a single feeding (BISON 2004c; lvanyi et al. 2000); prey also supplies a source of water (Lowe et al., 1986). Excess nutrition is stored in fat bodies in the abdomen and tail, which are then utilized during times of limited food availabilityor hibernation (Beck 2005).
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-37 EPG SWIP- Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Habitat loss, particularly urban development, threatens the Gila Monster in much of its range J (Beck 2005). Residential housing developments and road mortality reduces population density and isolates segments of populations (Beck 2005). Non-native invasive plants are threats in some areas and lead to more frequent burns and the eventual changeover of a plant community. Illegal collection for the pet trade is another source of loss from wild populations.
Potential impacts to Gila Monsters from the construction of the transmission line may include mortality along transmission line access roads and crushing by construction equipment. Transmission towers may provide perching habitat for the Red-tailed Hawk, which is the primary predator of Gila Monsters. It has been suggested that select mammals may prey on Gila Monsters, including coyotes, foxes, skunks, bobcats, and mountain lions (Brown and Carmony 1991). The clearing of transmission line roads could provide movement corridors for these predators and may lead to infiltration by non-native plants and the alteration of plant communities.
Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake (Lam propeltis pyromelana)
The Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake occurs in Nevada, Utah, Arizona, western New Mexico, south into Mexico. In Nevada, this species exists only as isolated populations in White Pine County (NNHP 2006), occurring in coniferous forests, oak-pine transition zones, chaparral and sage scrub, and riparian woodlands at elevations from 2,750 to approximately 9,000 feet (Stebbins 2003). Most of its distribution is in montane areas. As constrictors, they killprey by asphyxiation before consuming it. Common prey includes lizards, snakes, mice and other rodents, and frogs (Stebbins 2003).
Sonoran Mountain Kingsnakes are highly desired in the pet trade, and most of the threat to their survival comes from over-collecting and the use of destructive collecting techniques. Sonoran Mountain Kingsnakes use downed and rotting logs, rock outcrops, and talus slopes as refuge and for thermoregulation. Collectors often use crowbars and prying tools to dismantle such microhabitats to access the animals, thus rendering these habitats unusable by other snakes not collected.
Potential impacts from the transmission line are primarily related to allowing increased access to collectors into formerly remote areas. Such access may allow increased collection pressure and increased habitat destruction. Snakes could also be run over by equipment or vehicles during construction or by users of the transmission line access road after completion of construction. Ground-disturbing activities resulting from the construction of project facilities and access roads may allow invasive grasses to infiltrate the area and could result in an increase in fire potential, which may affect these snakes.
Short-Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi Idouglasiil)
The Short-Horned Lizard is a large (to 125 mm) horned lizard of middle elevations, found across a large portion of western North America from Alberta and Saskatchewan in the north, south to Durango, Mexico. In the western United States, it occurs in 10 states exclusive of California and the Pacific Northwest. In Nevada, the short-horned lizard generally occurs in White Pine and Elko counties. Found between 900 and 11,300 feet, this species is more cold tolerant than other horned lizards. Suitable habitat varies from open prairie and sagebrush communities to spruce
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-38 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 to
to
of
to
48
as
for
are
the
the
and
and EPG
Baja 2007
small
to
areas
at break Clark,
led
where
desert
hours. 2,
closely
5
include
a (NDOW
vehicles
such
which Arizona,
in
or
outcrops
Common of
(Stebbins
get July
in
individuals
are
by
has
plants
desertscrub and
to
grasses
some
may
depredation. rocks,
with
alteration
brushlands The
Northern
impossible increasing
soil components
rocky
occur move
and
of
KWMA
snails
variety
western flowers,
afternoon
line
rocks of
plant
to
cottonwood-willow
a
of
and Basking
a
along
the crushing
and
open render
Sonoran
rates
of
habitat
and
between
States. almost
non-native
around
in
yellow
jacks
non-native
impacted.
it
important outcrops,
onto
live-bearing,
and
by fruit
ants,
may and
specialists
of
If
loose,
between
deserts
is
be
include
chuckwallas
are
spiders,
is
chaparral,
United
and
Conversion
climb
transmission
California,
crevices rocky
morning
increased
fond
line
scrub, boulders
Chuckwalla.
also trade
recorded
making
in
hydraulic
to area,
to
the 2006).
outcrop
the
which
is
late
primarily
open Mohave
species
infiltration
pet
wasps, and
wedging
road. habitat
may
in
of
of
and
flowers;
to
compaction
rock
body,
riparian of its 2003). the
refuge
and
the
use
This
eats
project
lizard line leading
Common
rocks
of
particularly
occasionally proximity
lizard
for
lead
and
beetles,
buds,
southeastern
of
transmission take
flowers
species
the
the
may
mixed
May.
during
will are
crowbars
lizard
in
Ground
primarily
the the (NatureServe strategy
also the
for Sonoran
close
(Stebbins
raptors,
construction
lungs
A-39
also
they
in
are
leaves,
They
the
shrub,
for
removal
from using termites,
collection
may
component
Nevada,
road,
the
through
short-horned
in
transmission
on
but
are
and
Nevada their
as
escape
atefl
2003). especially
and 2004d).
Chuckwallas are
line
In
defensive
second-largest mixed
2003).
the from
The
roads
habitat
2006). that
September
Lizards
and
populations
short-horned
March
such construction.
communities,
present
the
collectors important
southern
line
roads,
habitats,
inflating
Chuckwallas browsing
Their
is
(BISON
the
is Assessment
along
by
(Stebbins
from
An
2003).
brittlebush, bush of Canotia 2005a).
some disturbed, (NNHP
provide
by shelter
the
through
equipment,
during
(Stebbins
If
or
Sauromalus Utah,
chuckwallas
roadways
(
transmission
on
lizards
2003). chuckwallas
them
may
place
to
July
obesus) 2005a).
lizards,
2003).
variety
caused Biological
Short-Horned
the (AGFD
invertebrates
bush
to
the
provide
creosote
a
herbivores,
2005).
counties
affected
along
2004d).
to
(Stebbins
transmission the
woodland,
ater
from Chuckwalla
particularly
takes Portion to
towers
of
are
use
perennials other themselves
that threats
with
Nye
equipment
dislodge A
mortality
construction fAGFD
(S. has
horned
Mexico
(Stebbins
infiltrate
of
born
Chuckwalla
access
to (Stebbins
impacts
of southwestern creosote
threats
by
and burrow
present juniper (BISON
and
to
(SDNHM
destruction
Mating
areas
are
on Southern
and
diet
other
wedge
heavy
Common
be -
primary
clearing
hillsides Appendix
to
forests
Lincoln, Potential uninhabitable, Chuckwalla Like grasslands Common extreme riparian, proportion and allowed California, annuals partially Chuckwallas habitats 2003). young The their Chuckwallas predators habitat Potential tied rocks 2000). they destruction may those flowers The
crushing Final fir and chances
Transmission SWIP The
)
)
N replacement of preferred food-plants by weedy species. Also, transmission line access roads willallow collectors easier access to formerly relatively inaccessible populations.
4. AMPHIBIANS
Arizona (Southwestern) Toad (Bufo m. microscaphus)
The Arizona Toad exists as isolated populations in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Mexico (AGFD 2002; Stebbins 2003), and is recorded at elevations between 480 and 8,400 feet. In Nevada, the Arizona Toad historically occurred in Lincoln and Clark counties in Las Vegas Valley and north of Highway 15, north to Pioche (Schwaner and Sullivan 2005). This species has disappeared from the Las Vegas Valley (Bradford 2002; Stebbins 2003), and is an evaluation species under the Clark County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (Hiatt and Boone 2003).
Arizona Toads use sandy margins and terraces with dense willow clumps, open flats, flood channels within approximately 100 meters of streambeds, and the adjacent upslope terraces (Sweet [1992] in: Schwaner and Sullivan 2005). Higher elevation populations are associated with riparian zones in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests (Schwaner and Sullivan 2005). This toad is not dependent on summer rains as are most desert Bufonids. In Nevada, B. microscaphus uses spring-fed wetlands (Bradford 2002), although it also can be found in rocky streams and canyons in oak-pine woodland (AGFD 2002). Home range sizes are unknown.
As for most toads, prey items for Arizona Toads include snails, crickets, beetles, and ants, and ] they sometimes cannibalize newly metamorphosed individuals. This toad forages primarily at night, and hops more than it walks (Stebbins 2003). The larvae eat algae, organic debris, and plant tissue (NatureServe 2006).
In Las Vegas Valley, Arizona Toads were once common but have been completely replaced by Woodhouse Toads (B. woodhousil; Bradford 2002). Threats to this species include water diversions, groundwater withdrawal, reservoirs, hybridization, heavy grazing, and non-native species (AGFD 2002, Bradford 2002). Hybridization with the more generalist B. woodhousli has been documented in many areas of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah as the latter species has expanded its range, usually as a result of human activities (Schwaner and Sullivan 2005).
Potential impacts to Arizona Toads from the construction of the transmission line would be temporary and include the mortality of active adults and juveniles from construction traffic. No impacts to habitat for the Arizona Toad are anticipated.
Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)
The Columbia Spotted Frog is a medium sized (to 10.1 cm) true frog of the northwestern United States and Canada (Stebbins 2003). In the United States, this frog occurs in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah (Stebbins 2003). It is a highly aquatic “pond frog,” usually requiring cool, permanent water, although they may occur in creeks and streams as well. In the southern part of its range, the Columbia Spotted Frogs is very patchy in distribution, restricted to montane waters, isolated desert springs, and other permanent waters
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-40 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 N in otherwise arid places (Stebbins 2003). In the project area the Columbia Spotted Frog occurs J in Nye and White Pine counties. Like most frogs, Columbia Spotted Frogs are opportunistic and eat a wide variety of invertebrates, including crickets, spiders, and grasshoppers. Small vertebrates may also comprise a portion of its diet (NatureServe 2006).
Threats to Columbia Spotted Frogs include predation by non-native frogs and fish, disease, and dewatering of habitat due to groundwater diversions and damming of streams, Impacts due to construction of the transmission line are expected to be minimal. Individuals may be crushed by heavy machinery or construction traffic, but long-term impacts are not expected.
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)
The Northern Leopard Frog is widespread, found throughout much of the northern United States and Canada. Once very common throughout its range, the Northern Leopard Frogs has declined significantly, including the western portion of its range. In Nevada, Northern Leopard Frogs were once found in western, northern, and eastern Nevada, but they have suffered recent range contractions and now persist only in isolated populations. The Northern Leopard Frog is recorded in the KWMA(NDOW 2000).
Northern Leopard Frogs breed in a variety of aquatic habitats including quiet or slow-moving streams and rivers, wetlands associated with lakes, permanent or temporary pools and ponds, and human-constructed habitats, such as borrow pits, cattle tanks, and agricultural canals fLannoo 2005). Home ranges for the Northern Leopard Frog include breeding sites, J hibernacula, and upland foraging and dispersal areas (Merrell 1970).
Threats to Northern Leopard Frogs include disease, illegal collecting, habitat degradation, and predation by non-native frogs, fish, and crayfish. Impacts due to the construction of the transmission line are expected to be minimal, limited mainly to direct the mortality of individuals by heavy equipment and construction traffic in areas where suitable habitat exists. The transmission line has only two perennial stream crossings (spanned), reducing or eliminating potential impacts to aquatic habitat.
5. FISH
White River Desert Sucker (Catostomus clark! intermedius)
The Desert Sucker is a medium sized fish with a round, sucker-shaped mouth located on the ventral surface of the head. The dorsal color is brown, while the coloration is lighter ventrally. The eyes are located high on the head. The species occurs throughout the lower Colorado River drainage system in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. Three subspecies of the Desert Sucker occur in Nevada, one of which is C. c. intermedius. This subspecies is currently known only from the White River watershed in Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties in Nevada (NatureServe 2006). They occupy Preston Big Spring and Lund Town Spring in the White River System, and have been recorded in the KWMA(NDOW2000).
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-41 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 a
of
is
by
into
and
and
and EPG 2007
from
minor
small
rather White
over 2,
exotics access
prefers
access include Moapa area
eastern County
objects.
a currents
degrees resulting
It wetlands
drainage
vicinity
springfish
move
Speckled
of
albivallis),
by
conditions, July
caused The
and
in
construction species 70 and
fish;
(Rhinichthys
facilities
of
the
include
Clark mainly
could wetlands
square
dorsal
and
with head,
resulting
River
slower
Lund.
in
to is
fish
in
material
from
ground-disturbing
River.
but
from
habitat
carried
Dace
The native towers
day,
erosion the
could
submerged
drainage
tail
facilities and riffles,
project
by
large
in
facilities
White
of
roads
in
County
a
of
the
but
towers
The
(Lepidomeda
and
body. Muddy endemic
from
subspecies
other
River
(organic
resulting
Springfish
of minimal,
Nye
stay non-native
is
project
with
pluvial
caused
parasites
Preston
Speckled
the important
project
in
access
to
and
during
of
this
be
changes
spots.
poois
of upper
the
of on
from
White temperatures
placement
minimal,
fish
waters
River
and and
habitat
detritus and
other
tend
in
the
with of
construction be dark
Spinedace pools
erosion
would
stones
back
Springtish
in
placement
1990s,
drastic
of
1994).
vicinity
pluvial
albivallis)
avoids
the
birds,
White
algae,
moapae)
far Sucker
Watershed
from
predation
River
Young would
facilities several
the the from construction
throughout and
the
River
rows
deeper
ranging
streams
set
and
seminuda), from
construction
in
Moore avoids
In deep-bodied
springs
and
the
River
balleyi
with
&
the Springfish
two
exist
Desert bailey!
from
are
waters
rapid
Preston
fish White the
turbid.
scraping project
large White Sucker in
sedimentation (Gila
A-42
of
from
is
construction
that
of with
small,
to
3),
by
that
White
1962).
outflows
River
River
resulting
effluents with
a
stay
other
known
(Dames
line tan invertebrates
five
Chub
include
the sp.
Moapa
fins
Desert
is
is
competition
warm-water
water construction
of
by Watershed
in
their
potential
are
along
White
White
resulting
(Crenichthys
Rivers
moderately
The
Adults
impacts
anal
(Crenichthys
small
the
five River
line to
substrate
to
one
River
and
to
construction vegetation
is
(Cottus
include
sedimentation
(La
sides
silt. associated
Muddy Suckers
crossings.
and
the Assessment
and Fahrenheit
streams waters
Springfish
Springfish
when
Preston the
Virgin
predation River,
transmission
fish
the
White
on
the around
small limited
Nevada.
impacts
or
vegetation
springs
these
Springfish
sandy stream
the
the
dorsal
with
Desert Springfish
this
the Sculpin
be
and
quiet
River River
and of potential Nevada Biological
feed
of
degrees
activities
to
to
transmission
to 1996).
to White
subspecies
night
in
to with
River,
shares
occupies
and
occupy the
warm
River
organisms), and
stream
Since
diseases, coriacea),
River
at Portion to
River
the 98.5
They
would White
dusky,
the
White
This A of
vicinity
only
also
Sigler
to
threats
White to
gravel
southeastern
three
limited
threats impacts
It
impacts
associated
feed White
mouth,
the
roads.
in
White
of heads
Suckers
Since alteration.
and
fishes,
White
the be
disturbance
banks.
to
in
crossings. Southern
(Moapa
Springfish
decaying
spans
southeastern
olive Moapa -
Preston forked.
major
occurs Appendix
Potential Potential riffles (Sigler roads. Preston Fahrenheit exotic activities and inhabited Potential Desert along bottom disturbance would these spring habitat minor roads spans ground-disturbing Moapa from The access and The construction River
dark Dace osculus). terminal and
The than system Final Dace, SWIP
]
N Desert Sucker (Catostomus clark,), Pahranagat Spinedace (Lepidomeda altivelis), and a ) Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys sp. 3) (NatureServe 2006). The warm springs of the Moapa Valley make up the headwaters of the Moapa, or Muddy River. Some of the springs have a slow current with large pools. Other springs form streams that run swiftly. In large pools, the species has been observed spawning (La Rivers 1962). The swifter water may provide more abundant food supply for young as they become more independent. They feed on filamentous algae and small aquatic invertebrates (NatureServe 2006).
Potential impacts to the Moapa White River Springfish would be minimal, but could include minor disturbance of stream vegetation resulting from the construction of project facilities and access roads. Since the transmission line spans the White River, impacts to Moapa White River Springfish resulting from construction would be limited to potential sedimentation of waters from erosion caused by ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads in the vicinity of these crossings.
Moorman White River Springfish (Crenichthys baileyi thermophilus)
The Moorman White River Springfish is one of five subspecies of White River springfish, occurring in Nevada. This subspecies occupies the White River Watershed in Nye County, Nevada, and is recorded in the KWMA(NDOW 2000). It is ranked as critically imperiled in the state because of its extreme rarity. The factors contributing to its decline make it vulnerable to extirpation from its range.
Potential impacts to the Moorman White River Springfish would be minimal, but could include minor disturbance of stream vegetation resulting from the construction of project facilities and access roads. Since the transmission line spans the White River, impacts to Moorman White River Springfish resulting from construction would be limited to potential sedimentation of waters from erosion caused by ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads in the vicinityof these crossings.
Relict Dace (Relictus solitarius)
The Relict Dace was described by Hubbs and Millerin 1972. It is an endemic (known only in a defined area) fish occupying sites associated with pluvial Franklin, Gale, Waring, and Steptoe lakes. The recent (2005) range of this species is limited to the intermountain valleys of Ruby, Butte, Steptoe, and Goshute in Elko and White Pine counties, Nevada (Goodchild 2005). Relict Dace were once considered abundant in the north-central Great Basin, but were extirpated in most of those areas due to habitat alteration (e.g. spring and outflow modifications) and the introduction of exotic fish (e.g. largemouth bass [Micropteres salmoides]). In White Pine County, there are two geographic areas (consisting of several populations in separate waters within the valley) that support Relict Dace: Cordano Ranch in Steptoe Valley and Keegan Ranch in Spring Valley (Goodchild 2005).
The Relict Dace occupies springs, their outflows, and lakes and ponds. Reproduction varies from location to location, and may be dependent on the quality of the habitat they live in. According to Goodchild (2005), oxygen content probably affects reproductive activity more than
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-43 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 temperature. The variations in oxygen over a 24-hour period also may influence their ) distribution.
The Relict Dace are considered opportunistic feeders, choosing from a wide range of invertebrates. They appear to prefer the organisms attached to or clinging to the stems and leaves of plants or other objects projecting above the bottom sediments of water.
The threats to the Relict Dace and most of the native fish that exist widespread in small ranges is the generally the same. Introductions of exotic species and habitat loss and degradation are the main threats to the Relict Dace. According to Goodchild (2005), a study by Hubbs and Miller (1972) and one by Vigg (1982), suggested that the sanctuaries created for this species allude to a genotypic or phenotypic distinctiveness of the Relict Dace within the Steptoe Valley. It is suggested that each general location, consisting of one or more sites, contains genetically distinct populations. Ifthis is true, the loss of these populations could result in the loss of unique forms and genotypes of the fish.
Potential impacts to the Relict Dace would be minimal to nonexistent ifsprings and seeps where the fish lives are left undisturbed. The proposed transmission line corridor in the Steptoe Valley does not cross any springs and, for that reason, the project will have no impact on Relict Dace populations or habitat.
White River Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus sspi
- The White River Speckled Dace is one of the most variable species in North America. According to Minckley (1985), this variability is due to geologic events that have resulted in numerous ] isolated populations. In addition, Minckley states that the variability also reflects inadequate information on population interrelationships. The White River Speckled Dace is one of at least six known subspecies found in Nevada, four of which exist in the White River Watershed in White Pine and Nye Counties. Within the White River Watershed, associated native fishes include White River sculpin, speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), White River Spinedace, Desert Sucker, and Pahranagat Spinedace. According to Dames & Moore (1994), the White River Speckled Dace occur in springs within two valleys: Northern White River Valley and Pahranagat Valley. It has been speculated that White River Speckled Dace could be the same taxon as Pahranagat Spinedace (Rhinichthys osculus velifer).
White River Speckled Dace occupy a variety of habitats including riffles (shallow zone), runs (area of flowing current), and pools of cool flowing headwaters, creeks, and small to medium rivers with mostly rocky substrates. The young are usually found in shallow water in streams, often congregating below riffles and eddies (small whirlpool) (Minckley 1973). Stream populations spawn in swift water over rocky substrates; whereas the lake populations spawn in shallow waters with gravel substrate or on the gravel edge of riffles in inlet streams (Moyle 1976).
The diet consists mostly of benthic insects (those living along river/stream bottoms). They include invertebrates, algae, and in some cases, detritus (litter formed from fragments of dead material). The young feed on mainly zooplankton (NatureServe 2006). The main threats to this species are the same as threats to other native fish occupying small ranges, including introductions of exotic species, habitat loss and degradation, and water pollution potential impacts to the White River Speckled Dace, are expected to be minimal since
FinalAppendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-44 EPG SWIP- Southern Portion July 2, 2007 -S.’ the transmission line spans the White River and effects to this species resulting from construction would be limited to potential sedimentation of waters from erosion caused by ] ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads in the vicinityof these crossings.
Pahranagat Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus velifefl
The Pahranagat Speckled Dace occurs only in the White River Valley system in Pahranagat Valley in Lincoln County, Nevada. Habitat requirements, reproduction, and threats are the same as White River Speckled Dace. See the discussion in section above.
The location where this project crosses the Pahranagat Wash is downstream of the wetland complexes in the Pahranagat Valley, and is dry most of the year. No habitat exists for Pahranagat Speckled Dace at this crossing location and, consequently, there will be no impact to this species.
6. INVERTEBRATES
Schell Creek Mountainsnail (Oreohelix nevadensis)
“Oreohelix is the most distinctive and most widespread genus of recent, large land snails of western North America” (Bequaert and Miller 1973). Many species of land snails in the southwestern United States are relictual, with localized populations that were isolated after the retreat of the most recent glacial period. Species of Oreohelix typically inhabit rocky outcrops or ) talus slopes in steep terrain, where they are an important component of the decomposer fauna, feeding on dead leaves and fungi (AGFD 2003). Many species of Oreohelix are montane in habit, and are restricted to higher elevations where plant cover helps retain the soil moisture on which these species depend. Other species are relatively tolerant of warm, dry environments, surviving on moisture retained in talus or other rocky formations. Some species are restricted to low pH soils derived from calcium-based rocks such as limestone or marble, but others are more tolerant of more acidic conditions derived from igneous or metamorphic origins.
The Schell Creek Mountainsnail is known from the Hamlin, Spring, Snake, and Steptoe Valleys in Nevada (NatureServe 2006). Of these, only the Steptoe Valley occurs within the project area. The transmission line route crosses the Egan Range, passing through habitat that could support the Schell Creek Mountainsnail. The Egan Range is comprised predominantly of Lower Paleozoic carbonate strata, primarily limestone and dolomite (Stewart and Carlson 1978), which has the same origin as the formations in other ranges where the Schell Creek Mountainsnail occurs.
Potential impacts to the Schell Creek Mountainsnail could include the crushing of individuals, disturbance of rocky habitat, and removal of moisture-holding vegetation resulting from the construction of project facilities and access roads. Considering the range of this species, the area that would be affected is quite small, and impacts are considered inconsequential for this species.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-45 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Duckwater Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis aloba)
The Duckwater Pyrg is recorded only at two rheocrene (flowing spring) localities within 2 kilometers of each other on the Duckwater Indian Reservation in the Duckwater Valley (Hershler 1998), approximately 24 miles west of the closest point of the proposed project. There would be no impacts to the Duckwater Pyrg or its habitat that could result from the construction or operation of the transmission line.
Southern Duckwater Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis anatina)
The Southern Duckwater Pyrg is known only from a single rheocrene location in the Duckwater Valley (Hershler 1998), approximately 24 miles west of the closest portion of the project route. There would be no impacts to the Southern Duckwater Pyrg or its habitat that could result from the construction or operation of the transmission line.
Transverse Gland Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis cruciglans)
The Transverse Gland Pyrg is known from several locations in far northeastern White Pine County, and in southeastern Elko County, Nevada (Hershler 1998). The closest location of this species is approximately 32 miles northeast of the proposed WPES. There would be no impacts to the Transverse Gland Pyrg or its habitat that could result from the construction or operation of the transmission line.
Landyes Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis landey,)
Landyes pyrg is known only from a single rheocrene, the type locality, in central White Pine County, Nevada in the Steptoe Valley (Hershler 1998). The project route enters the Steptoe Valley about four miles north of the type locality, and there would be no impacts to the Landyes pyrg or its habitat that could result from the construction or operation of the transmission line.
Sub-Globose Steptoe Ranch Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis orbiculata)
The Sub-Globose Steptoe Ranch Pyrg is known only from springs on the Steptoe Ranch in central White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998). The closest point of the project right-of-way to this location is approximately 4.5 miles north of the springs, and there would be no impacts to the Sub-Globose Steptoe Ranch Pyrg or its habitat that could result from the construction of the project.
Bifid Duct Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis peculiaris)
The Bifid Duct Pyrg is primarily known from several springs in Millard County, Utah, but also is recorded from two locations in southeastern White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998). The closest known locality for the Bifid Duct Pyrg is in the Spring Valley (Hershler 1998), approximately 34 miles east of the transmission line route. There would be no impacts to the BifidDuct Pyrg or its habitat that would result from the construction of the project.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-46 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Southern Steptoe Pyrg (Pyrgulopsis sulcata)
The Southern Steptoe Pyrg is known only from a single rheocrene site, the type locality, in central White Pine County, Nevada in the Steptoe Valley (Hershler 1998). The closest the transmission line comes to this location is approximately 4 miles north of the springs. Consequently, there would be no impacts to the Southern Steptoe Pyrg or its habitat that could result from the project.
Grated Tryonia (Tryonia clathrata)
Snails of the genus Tryonia are included in the fresh water snail family Hydroblldae. Most species are restricted to fresh water, but there is at least one species that inhabits brackish waters in California. The Grated Tryonia is recorded from the Muddy River Spring system and the White River “trough” (Herschler [2001] in NatureServe 2006). While the primary location of this species is the Muddy River, it could potentially occur in any freshwater source within the greater White River Valley watershed.
Potential impacts to the Grated Tryonia would be minimal, but could include minor disturbance of stream vegetation resulting from the construction of project facilities and access roads. Since the transmission line spans the White River, impacts to the Grated Tryonia resulting from construction would be limited to potential sedimentation of waters from erosion caused by ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads in the vicinityof these crossings.
Pahranagat Naucorid Bug (Pelocoris s. shoshone)
Naucorid Bugs (creeping water bugs) are yellow-brown to brown in color, are dorso-ventrally flattened, and rounded to oval in shape. Most species are between 9 and 13 millimeters in length. They are predaceous on a variety of aquatic animals and can administer a painful bite if handled carelessly. They are usually found in lotic waters where they hunt among vegetation or on the undersides of floating objects in the water (Thorp and Covich 2001; Triplehorn and Johnson 2005). The Pahranagat Naucorid Bug is known only from wetlands in the Pahranagat Valley in Nevada. The project route does not enter the Pahranagat Valley, but passes the south end of the valley about 3% mile east of Maynard Lake. Where the project route passes through this area it is within the watershed of the Coyote Springs Valley. Based on the known distribution of the Pahranagat Naucorid Bug, it would not be present within the project right-of- way, and there would be no impacts to this species resulting from the construction or operation of the transmission line.
White River Wood Nymph (Cercyonis pegala pluvialis)
The White River Wood Nymph is a subspecies of the Common Wood Nymph (C. pegala). The Common Wood Nymph inhabits large, open grassy areas, and marshy or bog areas where larval host plant species are present. For the species, the larvae feed on a variety of grass species, including Tridens spp., Andropogon spp., and wild oat (Avena fatua) (Stewart et al. 2001; USGS 2004). The White River Wood Nymph is known from several locations along the project route including sites within the Steptoe, White River, and Dry Lake valleys (NatureServe
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-47 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 2006; NNHP 1998). The White River Wood Nymph is likely to be present in areas containing suitable habitat along the transmission line route from the Dry Lake Valley north to the north end of the project in the Steptoe Valley.
The removal of vegetation during the construction of project facilities and access roads could potentially impact the White River Wood Nymph. Impacts could include loss of butterfly eggs, larvae, pupae, and vegetation that supports larvae and adult butterflies. Ground disturbing activity such as vegetation removal could provide an opportunity for colonization by invasive noxious weed species that could compete with native vegetation, including larval food grasses and plants that provide nectar sources for adult butterflies. Certain invasive plant species can alter the fire regime of habitats, and can adversely affect native plant communities in that manner. The area of disturbance involved with the construction of the transmission line is minor considering the amount of habitat available in the valleys for this species, and potential impacts to the White River Wood Nymph from the project are considered inconsequential.
Baking Powder Flat Blue (Euphiotes bernardino minuta)
The Baking Powder Flat Blue is known only from Baking Powder Flat (NatureServe 2006), northwest of Shoshone, Nevada. The larval host plant is a species of buckwheat [Eriogonum shockley,] (Dames & Moore 1994). No point of the transmission route is any closer than 40 miles from the known range for this species. There would be no impacts to this species that could result from the construction or operation of this project.
White River Uncas Skipper (Hesperia uncas grandiosa)
The Uncas Skipper (Hesperia uncas) inhabits short-grass prairies and sagebrush habitats where the larval food plants, typically blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and needlegrass (Stipa spp.) occur (Stewart et al. 2001; USGS 2004). The White River Uncas Skipper is currently known only from the White River Valley in Nevada north of Sunnyside, but other occurrences of the species are suspected to the west in the Railroad and Big Smokey valleys (NatureServe 2006).
The transmission line route passes through the west side of the White River Valley, which could be within the range of the White River Uncas Skipper.
Potential impacts to the White River Uncas Skipper could include loss of butterfly eggs, larvae, pupae, and vegetation that supports larvae and adult butterflies. Ground-disturbing activity such as vegetation removal during the construction of project facilities and access roads could provide an opportunity for colonization by invasive noxious weed species that could compete with native vegetation, including larval food grasses and plants that provide nectar sources for adult butterflies.
Steptoe Valley Crescentspot (Phyciodes pascoensis Icocytaj arenacolofl
The Steptoe Valley Crescentspot is a subspecies of the Northern Crescent (P. cocyta). For the species, the Northern Crescentspot is typically associated with moist habitats such as riparian or marshy areas where the larval food plant occurs. The larvae feed on species of Aster (USGS
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-48 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 2004). The Steptoe Valley Crescentspot is known from the Steptoe and Spring valleys in east central Nevada.
The transmission line passes through a portion of the Steptoe Valley from the point it crosses the Egan Range to a point west of the WPES. Since this specific project area is not located in moist habitat in this vicinitythere would be no impacts to this species.
7. PLANTS
Las Vegas Bearpoppy (Arctomecon californica)
The Las Vegas bearpoppy is an evergreen, perennial member of the poppy family, Papa veraceae, which occurs in open, powdery, dry gypsum soils. The plants have yellow flowers on stalks 8 to 16 inches in height, and bloom from April to May. The plants are usually found adjacent to creosote bush, saltbush, or blackbrush associations at elevations from 1,060 to 3,640 feet (NNHP 2001).
The species is suffering a rapid decline from habitat destruction and fragmentation due to urbanization, highway construction, off-road vehicle use, and gypsum mining. The closest known occurrence of the species is approximately 15 miles south of the south terminus of the project at the Harry Allen Substation (NNHP 2001). The presence of the Las Vegas bearpoppy within the immediate project area is not likely, primarily due to lack of suitable gypsum soils. No individuals of this species were encountered during the rare plant surveys in the project corridor in May and June 2006.
White Bearpoppy; Merriam Bearpoppy fArctomecon merriamil)
The white bearpoppy is an evergreen, perennial herb. The leaves are basal, rounded-dentate, and moderately pilose, the hairs long and erect, which give the leaves a bluish-green appearance. The emerging flower stalks have the typical poppy family nodding habit of the flower bud, which becomes erect at maturity. The flowers, which have white petals on stalks 12 to 16 inches in height, appear in the spring (NNHP 2001). The white bearpoppy is found from Death Valley in southeastern California to the Meadow Valley Wash of southeastern Nevada (FNA 2004). The plants occur on generally barren, calcareous soils, alluvial gravels and carbonate rock outcrops in creosote bush, blackbrush, or shadscale scrub at elevations from 2,000 to 6,280 feet (Calfbra 2006; FNA 2004; NNHP 2001). Populations of the white bearpoppy are decreasing in number (NNHP 2001).
The nearest known occurrence of the white bearpoppy to the project is at the Meadow Valley Wash, approximately 20 miles east of the project route. The species also occurs west of the transmission line route, and because of this and the presence of suitable habitat along the project route, its presence cannot be precluded. No individuals of this species were encountered during the rare plant surveys in the project corridor in May and June 2006.
Potential impacts to the white bearpoppy could include the temporary disturbance of habitat and the removal of any existing plants within areas where vegetation removal is associated with the
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-49 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 construction of project facilities and access roads. Such ground disturbing activities also can allow colonization by invasive plant species that may compete with native plants for resources.
Eastwood Milkweed (Asciepias eastwoodiana)
Eastwood milkweed is currently listed as Asciepias uncialis ssp. ruthiae (ITIS 2006). Within the project area, the Eastwood milkweed is recorded in Lincoln and Nye counties in the Dry Lake and White River valleys, respectively (NNHP 2001). The plants typically inhabit alkaline soils in areas where vegetation is sparse, between 4,680 and 7,080 feet elevation. Eastwood milkweed often occurs in microhabitats that provide additional moisture such as washes in shadscale, mixed scrub, sagebrush, and up into pinyon-juniper habitats (NNHP 2001). Eastwood milkweed is a perennial herb with purple flowers that blooms in late spring (Calfbra 2006).
Primary threats to the Eastwood milkweed include trampling by cattle and habitat loss from road construction, development, and mining (NNHP 2001). A total of 46 individuals at two locations were found during the rare plant surveys conducted in the project corridor during May and June 2006. Potential impacts to the species could include the loss of plants and disturbance of the seed bank during the construction of project facilities and access roads. Additionally, ground- disturbing activities may increase the potential for colonization by invasive plant species that could compete with the Eastwood milkweed for resources.
Sheep Range Milkvetch; Crescent Milkvetch (Astragalus amphioxys var. musimonum)
Sheep range milkvetch is found on upper bajadas, gentle slopes, dirt roads, and disturbed areas in mixed desert shrub communities in Mohave County, Arizona, and Clark and Lincoln counties, Nevada (AGFD 2005b; NNHP 2001). The 15 known extant populations of this species occur in the Sheep Range within the Desert National Wildlife Range (DNWR), and west into the Nellis Air Force Bombing and Gunnery Range (NNHP 2001). Since the transmission line route will pass along the eastern boundary of the DNRW it is possible that this species could occur in the project area provided there is suitable habitat present. However, during rare plant surveys in this area during May and June 2006 no individuals of this species were encountered. Potential impacts to the Sheep Range milkvetch could include the destruction of plants and disturbance of the seed bank from vegetation removal or other ground-disturbing activities. Areas of disturbed ground can provide habitat suitable for encroachment by invasive plant species that could compete with the Sheep Range milkvetch for resources.
Threecorner Milkvetch (Astragalus geyeri var. triguetrus)
Threecorner milkvetch is restricted to deep sandy soils or dunes that are stabilized by either vegetation or a rocky veneer. Threecornér milkvetch has been recorded in Clark and Lincoln counties in Nevada, and in Arizona, at elevations from 1,100 to 2,400 feet (NNHP 2001). There are several element occurrences of the threecorner milkvetch in the vicinity of the project area; one occurs just northeast of the Harry Allen Substation, and the plants could occur in the project area, if suitable habitat is present. Threecorner milkvetch flowers anytime between late winter and early spring, but the plants typically only appear in wet years. This has complicated detection of the species in areas proposed for development, and may have resulted in the loss of plants that were not documented in dry years (NNHP 2001). The winter of 2006 was
FinalAppendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-50 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 exceptionally dry and no threecorner milkvetch emerged during the spring of 2006 (personal ) communication, Christina Lund to Linwood Smith, 2006)
Threats to the threecorner milkvetch include ground-disturbing impacts such as OHV use, utility corridor development, mining, and residential development (NNHP 2001). Potential impacts to the threecorner milkvetch that could result from the construction of project facilities and access roads could include the loss of plants and habitat disturbance.
Haifring Miikvetch (Astragalus mohavensis var. hemigyrus)
Halfring milkvetch is currently known mostly from areas west of the Spring Mountains. It formerly occurred as far west as California, where it has been extirpated (NNHP 2001). Halfring milkvetch occurs on carbonate rock and derived soils in creosote bush-bursage, blackbrush, and mixed shrub zones from 3,000 to 5,600 feet. Haifring milkvetch is similar to A. m. mohavensis, but has slightly smaller flowers (NNHP 2001), and the seedpod is longer and narrower (Munz 1974). The flowers appear in early spring (NNHP 2001). While the closest known population of the halfring milkvetch to the project route is approximately 14 miles west of the transmission line in the Sheep Range (NNHP 2001). Halfring milkvetch could occur in the project area on the carbonate-derived soils in the creosote bush-bursage habitat present on the site.
Potential impacts to the halfring milkvetch from the proposed project could include the disturbance of habitat and the removal of any existing plants during vegetation removal for the construction of project facilities and access roads.
Currant Mukvetch (Astragalus uncialis)
The currant milkvetch is known to have two disjunct populations in Nye County Nevada, and MillardCounty Utah (NatureServe 2006; NNHP 2001). The Nevada populations occur in the Hot Creek and Railroad valleys, which are west of the transmission line route in the White River Valley. The currant milkvetch could occur in the White River Valley ifsuitable habitat is present.
Currant milkvetch is a long-lived, perennial herb that occurs in sparsely vegetated, dry, limestone-derived, sandy, clay soils between 4,800 and 6,050 feet elevation (NatureServe 2006; NNHP 2001). The currant milkvetch is a low profile, mat-forming plant with silvery leaves and large pink-purple to purple flowers (NNHP 2001; UNPS 2003-2005).
Potential impacts to the currant milkvetch could include the loss of plants and the disturbance of habitat. Ground disturbances from the construction of project facilities and access roads could allow colonization by invasive plant species that could compete with the currant milkvetch for resources; however, impacts are expected to be low to non-existent, based on the fact that the plant has never been found in the White River Valley, including during the native plant surveys for this project in spring 2006.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-51 EPG SWIP- Southern Portion July 2, 2007 White River Catseye; Welsh Catseye (Cryptantha weishil)
The White River catseye is recorded in Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties in Nevada in the White River, Spring, Steptoe, Sand Spring, and Tikaboo valleys, and along the Meadow Valley Wash (NatureServe 2006). The White River catseye occurs on dry, sparsely vegetated outcrops or gravelly hills and adjacent whitish, carbonate-derived soils in sagebrush-rabbitbrush-juniper habitat from 4,540 to 6,660 feet elevation (NNHP 2001). The White River catseye is a biennial or short-lived, perennial herb up to 1-foot in height with several hairy stems supporting white flowers that appear in early summer (NNHP 201). The White River catseye has been identified as occurring in Jake’s Valley in the project EIS (Dames & Moore 1994). During the rare plant surveys in May and June 2006, thousands of individuals of this species were found throughout the White River Valley and northward into Jake’s Valley.
Minor soil-disturbing events actually seem to encourage the spread of the White River catseye, while impacts including more severe disturbances, such as those caused by heavy OHV use or habitat loss from placement of permanent structures such as buildings or roadways, negatively impact the species (NNHP 2001). Temporary ground-disturbing activities associated with transmission line construction may enhance habitat for the White River catseye, except in areas where project facilities and access roads need to be constructed in steeper terrain, where the disturbance is typically more severe (NNHP 2001).
Las Vegas Buckwheat (Eriogonum corymbosum var. nilesil)
Las Vegas buckwheat is listed as imperiled in Nevada and has been recommended for full protection (NNHP 2004). The plant does not carry a status designation under the USFWS or Forest Service, but is included by the Nevada Native Plant Society (NNHP 2004) as threatened. In addition, it is an evaluation species under the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Hiatt and Boone 2003). Subspecific designations have been misapplied, but genetic work has been undertaken to better understand this plant’s relationship to other species of buckwheat (NNHP 2004). Recent morphometric and molecular genetic analyses have confirmed that Eriogonum cotymbosum var. nllesll is a valid taxon and is eligible for status under the Endangered Species Act (Edwards 2007). A member of the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae), Las Vegas buckwheat is a long-lived shrub 0.3 to 1.2 meters in height. Leaves and branches are covered with tufts of fine, silver hairs, and the leaves are oval, 1 to 4 centimeters in length. The six-parted flowers are small (2 to 3 millimeters long), yellowish, and clumped.
The Las Vegas buckwheat usually occurs on or near gypsum soils that form low mounds or outcrops in washes and drainages or in areas of low relief. Las Vegas buckwheat apparently occurs on gypsum soils that are deeper than those occupied by the Las Vegas bearpoppy (Arctomecon californica), another endemic species that is found on gypsiferous soils. This plant is often associated with other gypsum-tolerant species and shrubs such as Ephedra torreyana, Acacia greggi and Larrea tridentata surrounded by Ambrosia dumosa, Stanleya pinnata, Atriplex canescens, Ephedra torreyana, Larrea tridentata, Acacia greggi Suaeda torreyana, and Psorothamnus ftemontii (NNHP 2004).
Las Vegas buckwheat has a limited distribution in Nevada (Clark County), Arizona, and possibly Utah. In Nevada, Eriogonum conymbosum nilesli is largely restricted to the Las Vegas Valley, where it occurs as a disjunct population relative to the rest of its distribution (Hiatt and Boone
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-52 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 2003). An estimated 5,188 plants occur on 420 hectares of land in the Las Vegas Valley, and Las Vegas buckwheat is characterized as “declining rapidly” (NNHP 2004). Its elevational range ) is from 1,900 to 3,839 feet.
Construction of the SWIP-Southern Portion will have no direct impact to Las Vegas buckwheat. No plants of this species were found within the transmission line corridor during rare plant surveys conducted by Steve Ripple, Frank “Buddy” Smith, and Glenn Clifton in spring 2006. The nearest known population is approximately one-half mile east of the project corridor and increased access in this area resulting from the Coyote Springs development and this project could result in future indirect impacts to this species.
Sunnyside Green Gentian (Frasera gypsicola)
The Sunnyside green gentian is known only in eastern Nye and south central White Pine counties in Nevada, and MillardCounty, Utah (NNHP 2006; NatureServe 2006). Plants occur on valley flats, on dry silty-clay alkaline, often salt-encrusted soils in greasewood or sagebrush habitat between 5,000 and 5,500 feet elevation (NNHP 2001). Sunnyside green gentian is a perennial herb with grass-like leaves up to 2 decimeters in height. Purple-blue marked white flowers appear in June or July (NNHP 2001). The Sunnyside green gentian occur on the east side of the White River Valley. While the transmission line route follows the west side of the White River Valley, and is probably no closer than 5 miles to any known occurrence of the Sunnyside green gentian, this plant could be present within the project area, if suitable habitat is present.
Primary threats to the Sunnyside green gentian are ground disturbances such as OHV use and utility and road construction (NatureServe 2006). Potential impacts to the Sunnyside green gentian could include the loss of plants and habitat disturbance. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of project facilities and access roads could allow colonization by invasive plant species that could compete with the Sunnyside green gentian for resources.
Rock Purpusia (Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa
The rock purpusia is only known from southern Nye and central Lincoln counties, Nevada (NNHP 2001). Rock purpusia is a perennial herb that typically occurs on volcanic substrates in rocky areas of canyons, cliffs, and rock outcrops in upper elevation mixed-shrub, sagebrush, or pinyon-juniper habitats fNNHP 2001). Recorded elevations for the species are from 4,925 to 6,800 feet (NNHP 2001). White flowers appear in late spring or summer (NNHP 2001).
The closest known occurrence of the rock purpusia is in the south end of the North Pahroc Range fNNHP 2001), approximately 10 miles west of the project alignment. The rock purpusia could possibly be present within the general project area in the Delamar or Burnt Spring mountains, if suitable habitat is present. Potential impacts to the rock purpusia from the construction of project facilities and access roads could include the loss of plants and disturbance of habitat ifpresent.
flnal Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-53 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Pioche Blazingstar (Mentzelia argillicola)
The Pioche blazingstar is known only in the northern Meadow and southern Lake valleys in Lincoln County, Nevada (Holmgren and Holmgren 2002; NatureServe 2006; Reveal 2006).
Pioche blazing star is a multi-stemmed, perennial herb or subshrub up to three decimeters in height, oblanceolate leaves grayish with slight pubescence, with yellow flowers that appear from late May to August (Holmgren and Holmgren 2002). The plants inhabit low hills and slopes in dry silty-clay soils from 4,961 to 5,727 feet in elevation (Holmgren and Holmgren 2002).
Since the known range of this species is no closer than approximately 10 miles from any portion of the transmission line, and is separated from the transmission line by mountains on the west, the probability of this Pioche blazingstar occurring on the project route is considered low. Potential impacts to the species, if present, could include loss of plants and disturbance of habitat during construction of project facilities and access roads. Areas of disturbed ground can allow colonization by invasive plant species that could compete with the Pioche blazingstar.
Tiehm Blazingstar (Mentzelia tiehmii)
The Tiehm blazingstar is only known from the area of the reservoirs at Sunnyside in the White River Valley in Lincoln and Nye counties in Nevada (Holmgren and Holmgren 2002). Tiehm blazingstar is a multi-stemmed subshrub to 3 decimeters in height with oblanceolate to cordate clasping, densely pubescent grayish leaves, and yellow flowers that appear between June and September (Holmgren and Holmgren 2002).
Tiehm blazingstar grows on sparsely vegetated hills and bluffs in calcareous soils between 1,500 and 1,585 meters elevation (Holmgren and Holmgren 2002). The Tiehm blazingstar is likely to be present just south of the Tule Field Reservoir or elsewhere within the White River Valley wherever suitable habitat is present. Potential impact to the Tiehm blazingstar could include the loss of plants and habitat disturbance from the construction of project facilities and access roads. Areas of disturbed ground may allow invasive plant species to colonize the area and compete with the Tiehm blazingstar, and depending on the species involved, may also increase fire potential.
Yellow Twotone Beardtongue (Penstemon bicolor ssp. bicolor)
The yellow twotone beardtongue is a perennial herb less than 60 inches in height with thick, ovate leaves 1.5 to 4.5 inches in length. The basal leaves are fused around the stem. The flowers vary from yellow or cream to magenta; the corolla is from 0.7 to 1.1 inches in length. The plants are found in gravelly or rocky soils, often derived from calcareous rock, in creosote bush-bursage, blackbrush, mixed scrub, Joshua tree woodland, or lower juniper plant associations (Hickman 1993; NNHP 2001). The plants are recorded from 2,500 to 5,480 feet in elevation (NNHP 2001).
The yellow twotone beardtongue is primarily found in Clark County, Nevada, although historically it has been recorded in lnyo County, California (Calflora 2006). One of the known occurrences is in the south end of the Arrow Canyon Range, not far from where the ) transmission line would cross the range (NNHP 2001), and plants could occur in suitable habitat Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-54 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 within the project area; however, none were found during the rare plant surveys in the project corridor during May and June 2006.
Threats to the species are primarily from urban expansion in the Las Vegas area. However, grazing and OHV use could also be detrimental to populations of the yellow twotone beardtongue. Potential impacts to the plants from the proposed project could include disturbance of habitat and removal of any existing plants during vegetation removal for the construction of project facilities and access roads. Areas of ground disturbance can provide suitable habitat for encroachment by invasive plant species that could compete with the yellow twotone beardtongue for resources.
Parish Phacelia; Playa Phacelia (Phacelia parishil)
The parish phacelia is an annual plant, 2 to 6 inches in height. The basal leaves are widely elliptic to obovate and 0.3 to 1.2 inches in length, usually entirely, but occasionally slightly toothed. The flowers, which appear in late spring, have yellow tubes and lavender limbs (Hickman 1993). Plants occur on moist to superficially dry clay or alkaline soils, often at seeps, at the edge of playa lakes or valley bottom flats (Hickman 1993; NNHP 2001).
Parish phacelia has a rather wide distribution within Nevada, from southern Nye and Clark counties north into Lincoln and White Pine counties, and also occurs as two disjunct populations in western Arizona (ARPC No date; NNHP 2001). The closest known populations of parish phacelia are approximately 10 miles from the transmission line, one in southern Lincoln County and another in eastern Nye County (NNHP 2001). While suitable habitat for the Parish phacelia J occurs within the project area, no individuals of this species were found during the rare plant surveys in the project corridor during May and June 2006.
Potential impacts to the parish phacelia from the construction of project facilities and access roads could include the loss of plants, disturbance of habitat, and an increase in the potential for encroachment by invasive plant species in areas of disturbed ground.
Schlesser Pincushion; Schlesser Fishhook Cactus (Scierocactus schiesseri)
Schlesser pincushion cactus is known primarily in east-central Lincoln County, Nevada, near Panaca, Nevada, but also may occur in Utah. The Schlesser pincushion cactus may grow to 14 centimeters in height and has bright pink flowers that appear in late spring (NNHP 2001). Schlesser pincushion cacti typically occur in shadscale plant associations on a variety of soil types, often on gypsiferous lacustrine derived soils, and may be associated with cryptobiotic crusts fNNHP 2001).
Known locations for the Schlesser pincusion cactus are no closer than about 8 miles to east of the project alignment (NNHP 2001), but this species could be present, particularly in the eastern portion of Dry Lake Valley. No individuals of this species were found during the rare plant surveys in the project corridor during May and June 2006.
Potential impacts to Schlesser pincushion cacti from the construction of project facilities and access roads could include the crushing of plants, habitat disturbance, and an increase in J potential for encroachment by invasive plant species in areas of disturbed ground. Construction Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-55 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 of new access roads could increase human access to the area and could result in increased } illegal collection.
Currant Summit Clover fTrifolium andinum var. podocephalum)
The currant summit clover is known from the Humboldt-Toyabe National Forest in the White Pine Range in northeastern Nye County, and the Egan Range in northwestern Lincoln County, Nevada (NatureServe 2006; NNHP 2001).
The currant summit clover is a small herbaceous plant that grows in crevices in either volcanic or carbonate rocks in the pinyon-juniper association between 6,900 and 7,400 feet elevation (NNHP 2001). The project route traverses the southeast foothills of the White Pine Range near a known population of the currant summit clover; however, at this location, the elevation is approximately 6,300 feet, slightly below the known elevational range for the species. Currant summit clover could occur within the project area, ifsuitable habitat is present. Potential impacts to the currant summit clover could include the loss of plants and disturbance of habitat from construction of project facilities and access roads.
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-56 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 ______
REFERENCES
Alsop III, F.J. 2001. Birds of North America —Western Region. DK Publishing, Inc., New York. 752 pp.
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-List of North American Birds. 7th Edition. American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2005a. Sauromalus obesus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 7 pp. Internet site: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/ documents/Saurater.d003.pdf. Accessed: April 19, 2006.
2005b. Astraga/us amphioxys var. musimonum — Sheep Mountain Milk-Vetch. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 4 pp. Internet site: http:llwww.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/docu ments/Astram mu.d_000. pdf. Accessed: April 14, 2006.
2003. Oreohelix yavapal cummingsi. Yavapai Mountain Snail. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Internet site: Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Accessed: April 14, 2006.
2002. Bufo microscaphus microscaphus — Arizona Toad. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 4 pp. Internet site: http://www.azgfd.gov/w._c/edits/ documents/bufomimi .fi.pdf. Accessed: April2006.
.1996. Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (Public Review Draft). Nongame and Endangered WildlifeProgram, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 23 pp.
1993. Bats of Arizona- Special Heritage Edition. Arizona Wildlife Views. Vol. 36, No. 8. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 36 pp.
Arizona Rare Plant Committee (ARPC). No date. Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide. A collaboration of agencies and organizations including USDA Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Tohono O’odham Nation, University of Arizona, Arizona Native Plant Society, The Nature Conservancy, Desert Botanical Garden, the Arboretum at Flagstaff, Navajo Natural Heritage Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Back, G.N. and E.L. Smith. 1990. Southwestern Intertie Project. Sage Grouse Surveys: Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada. 4 pp.
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press. 286 pp.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-57 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 ______
Bat Conservation International (BCI). 2006. Internet site: hffp:Uwww.batcon.orglSPprofiles/ J index.asp. Accessed: Various dates in 2006. Bates, J.M. 1992. Winter Territorial Behavior of Gray Vireos. Wilson Bulletin. 104:425-433.
Beck, D.D. 2005. Biology of Gila Monsters and Beaded Lizards. U. C. Press, Berkeley. 211 pp.
Bent, A.C. 1965. Life Histories of North American Wagtails, Shrikes, Vireos, and Their Allies. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Bequaert, J.C. and W.B. Miller.1973. The Mollusks of the Arid Southwest. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona. 126-128 pp.
Bighorn Institute. No date. Wild Sheep of North America. Bighorn Institute Internet site: http:llwww. bighorninstitute.org. Accessed February 4, 2002.
Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON). 2004a. Yuma Myotis Bat Myotis yumanensis yumanensis species account. BISON Internet site: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states nmex._main/species/0501 03.htm. Accessed: March 31, 2006.
2004b. Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea species account. BISON Internet site: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nmex_main/species/041320.htm. Accessed: April 10, 2006.
2004c. Reticulate Gila Monster species account. Accessed several times in 2005 and 2006 at Internet site: http:llfwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nmex_main/species/0301 35.htm. Accessed: April 19, 2006.
2004d. ChuckwaHa species account. BISON Internet site http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/statesl nmex_mainJspecies/030054.htm. Accessed: April 19, 2006.
Bowers, N., R. Bowers and K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, New York. 351 pp.
Bradfield, T.D. 1974. On the behavior and ecology of the Pygmy Rabbit Sylvilagus idahoensis. M. S. Thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello. In: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1995. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Rabbit. Wildlife Management Program, WDFW, Olympia. 73 pp.
Bradford, D.F. 2002. Amphibian declines and environmental change in the eastern Mojave Desert. In Sada, D.W. and Sharpe, S.E., eds. 2004. Conference Proceedings, Spring- fed Wetlands: Important Scientific and Cultural Resources of the Intermountain Region, May 7-9, 2002, Las Vegas, NV. DHS Publication No. 41210. Retrieved 1-2-2006 from Desert Research Institute web site: http://www.wetlands.dri.edu.
Brown, N.L. 1996. Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea. Internet site: http:llarnica.csustan.edu/esrpp/burowl.htm. Accessed: June 12, 2003.
Brown, D.E. and N.B. Carmony. 1991. Gila Monster: Facts and Folklore of America’s Aztec Lizard. High Lonesome Books, Silver City, New Mexico.
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-58 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 _____
Buechner, H.K. 1960. The Bighorn Sheep in the United States, Its Past, Present, and Future. WildlifeMonograph, 4:1-174.
Bureau of Land Management (ELM). 2003. Nevada BLM Sensitive Species. Internet site: http://www.nv.blm.gov/wildlife/documents/sensitivespecies.pdf#search=’nevada%2OBLM %20sensitive%20species’. Accessed: March 27, 2006.
Calfiora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web appticationJ. 2006. Berkeley, California: The CalfIota Database [a non-profit organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed: April 14, 2006.
Center for Biological Diversity. 2001. Natural History of the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Internet site hifp:llwww.sw-center.org/swcbd/species/cuckoo/index. html. Accessed: December 11,2001.
Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer, Eds. 1982. Wild Mammals of North America. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Corman, T.E. and C. Wise-Gervais, eds. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 636 pp.
Dames & Moore. 1994. Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) - Environmental Impact Study (EIS).
Dawson, J.W. 1998. Prairie Falcon. Pp. 133-135. In: Glinski, R.L., Ed. The Raptors of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 220 pp.
Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igi, C.M. Goldade, P.A. Rabie and B.R. Euliss. 1999 (revised 2001). Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Burrowing Owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. 33 pp.
DeSante, D.F. and Ti. George. 1994. Population trends in the landbirds of western North America. Studies in Avian Biology 15: 173-190.
Dennis, J.V. 1958. Some aspects of the breeding ecology of the Yellow-Breasted Chat (Icteria virens). Bird-Banding 29:169-83.
Dobkin, D. and S. Granholm. No date. B399 Crissal Thrasher. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Internet site: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/htmIIB399.html. Accessed: April 11, 2006.
Edwards, F. 2007. Las Vegas buckwheat info. Personal Communication with Christina Lund, Las Vegas ELM. March 25 2007.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.
1988. The Birder’s Handbook: a Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York. 785 pp.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-59 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 ______
Fellers, G.M. and E.D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat Use and Foraging Behavior of Townsend’s Big ) Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in Coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy Vol. 83 No.1.167-177 pp.
Flora of North America (FNA). 2004. Arctomecon merriamli — Great bearciaw-poppy. Internet site: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1 &taxon_id=2335001 20. Accessed: April 14, 2006.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly, Eds. 2006. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (02/2006).
Glinski, R.L., Ed. 1998. The Raptors of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona. 220 pp.
Gough, G.A., J.R. Sauer, M. 111ff.1988. Patuxent Bird Identification Infocenter. Version 97.1. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. http:llwww.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/idl framlst/infocenter.html.
Goodchild, S. 2005. Relict Dace and Shoshone Ponds. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and WildlifeOffice, Reno, Nevada.
Hafner, D.J. 1996. Microtus montanus ssp. fucosus. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Internet site: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed: June 26, 2006.
Hall, E.R. 1995. Mammals of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada. 710 pp.
1981. The Mammals of North America. 2 Vols. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission. 64 pp.
Hershler, R.H. 2001. Systematics of the North and Central American aquatic snail genus Tryonia (Rissooidea: Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 612: 1-53.
1998. A Systematic Review of the Hydrobiid Snails (Gastropoda: Rissooldea) of the Great Basin, Western United States. Part I. Genus Pyrgulopsis. The Veliger Volume 41, No.1.132 pp.
Hiatt, H. and J. Boone, Eds. 2003. Clark County Nevada — Species Account Manual. Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning. Las Vegas, Nevada. 218 pp.
Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp.
Hjertaas, D., S. Brechtel, K. De Smet, 0. Dyer, E. Haug, G. Holroyd, P. James and J. Schmutz. 1995. National Recovery Plan for the Burrowing Owl. Report No. 13. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally Endangered WildlifeCommittee. 33 pp.
Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 602 pp.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-60 EPG SWIP. Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Holmgren, N.H. and P.K. Holmgren. 2002. New Mentzelias (Loasacea) from the Intermountain Region of western United States. Systematic Botany 27: 747-762. Available on Bioone Internet site: http://www.bioone.org.ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/perlserv/?request=get document&doi=1 0.1600%2F0363-6445%282002%29027%5B0747%3ANMLFTI%5D2.O. CO%3B2. Accessed: April20, 2006.
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (IllS). 2006. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System on line database, hffp:llwww.itis.usda.gov.
Ivanyi, C., J. Perry, T.R. Van Devender and H. Lawler. 2000. Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum): species account. Pages 551 — 552 In Phillips, S. J., and P. Wentworth Comus, Eds. A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Press, Tucson, Arizona and U.C. Press, Berkeley, California. 628 pp. Laymon, S.A. 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Internet site http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/ species/riparian/ybcuacct.html. Accessed: December 13, 2001.
Lee, D.5., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, RE. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey — North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. 867 pp.
Linneaus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, 10th ed. mshcpdocsNol2lappendixB/Sec-02.Birds/ 38.WesternYellowCuckoo.pdf. Accessed: March 2004.
Lowe, C.H., C.R. Schwalbe and T.B. Johnson. 1986. The Venomous Reptiles of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 115 pp.
Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim and A.L. Nelson. 1951. American Wildlife & Plants — A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. McGraw-HillBook Co., Inc. (1961 Dover edition). 500 pp.
Minckley,W.L. 1985. Native Fishes and Natural Aquatic Habitats in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region II West of the Continental Divide. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 158 pp.
Merlin, P. 2001. A Guide to Southern Arizona Bird Nests and Eggs. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Merrell, D.J. Migration and Gene Dispersal in Rana Pipiens. American Zoologist 10: 47-52 IN M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. U.C. Press, Berkeley, California. 1094 pp.
Morse, D.H. 1989. American Warblers: an ecological and behavioral perspective. Harvard University Press. 384 pp. Yellow-Breasted Chat.
Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. The University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 1086 pp.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-61 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 ______•_____
McCutchen, H.E. No Date. Desert Bighorn Sheep. Internet site: http:Hbiology.usgs.gov/s+t/ noframe/r039.htm#24735. Accessed: April3, 2006.
National Geographic Society (NGS). 2002. Field Guide to Birds of North America. Fourth Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 480 pp.
NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/ explorer. Accessed: multiple dates, 2006.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2005. State of Nevada Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno Nevada.
2000. Wayne E. Kirch Wildlife Management Area Conceptual Management Plan. State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources — Division of Wildlife. Appendix F.
1999. Checklist of Birds of Southern Nevada. Nevada Division of Wildlife, Southern Region.
Nevada Natural History Program (NNHP). 2004. Detailed Rare Animal List. Internet site:
http:llheritage. nv.gov/animlbig . htm. Accessed: multiple dates, 2005 and 2006.
2004. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Internet website: http://heritage.nv.gov/atlas/atlasndx .htm. Accessed: April 14, 2006.
2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Internet website: http:llheritage.nv.gov/atlas/ atlasndx.htm. Accessed: April 14, 2006.
1998. Scorecard —June 7998: Highest Priority Conservation Sites. Carson City, Nevada. Internet site: http:Hheritage.nv.gov/reports/scorl 998.pdf#search=’Cercyonis%2Opegala% 2opluviali&. Accessed: April 13, 2006.
Nowak, R.M. 1994. Walker’s Bats of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. 287 pp.
1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World, 5th ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Massachusetts.
Olendorif, R.R. 1993. Status, biology, and management of Ferruginous Hawks: a review. Raptor Res. and Tech. Asst. Cen., Special Report. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. 84 pp.
Pendley, B. Sensitive Species Table. 2005. Unpublished sensitive species data table for the Ely District Office of the Bureau of Land Management. 5 pp.
Polite, C. and J. Pratt. No date. Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Internet site: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/B1 31.html. Accessed: April 11, 2006.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-62 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 Reveal, J.L. 2006. An Array of Botanical Images. University of Maryland Internet site: ) http:llwww.life.umd.edu/emeritus/reveal/pbio/RevealSlides/loasmenrhLhtml. Accessed: April20, 2006.
Ridgeway, R. 1887. A Manual of North American Birds. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia Pennsylvania. Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). 2003. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Internet site: hffr://www.rcir .ora/
Russell, S.M. and G. Monson. 1998. The Birds of Sonora. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Ryser, Jr. G.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin, A Natural History. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada. 604 pp.
San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). 2005. Field Guide. Sauromalus ater Common Chuckwalla. SDNHM Internet site http://www.sdnhm .org/fieldguide/herps/saur-ate.html. Accessed: April 19, 2006.
Schmidly, D.J. 1991. The Bats of Texas. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas. 188 p.
Schwaner, T.D. and B.K. Sullivan. 2005. Bufo microscaphus: Arizona Toad. Pages 422 — 424 In M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. U.C. Press, Berkeley, California. 1094 pp.
Sigler, W.F. and J.W. Sigler. 1996. Fishes of Utah, A Natural History. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City, Utah. 375 pp.
Smith, E.L., W.S. Gaud, GD. Millerand M.H. Cochran. 1986. Studies of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensism mexicana) in western Arizona — Impacts of the Palo Verde to Devers 500kV transmission line. Final Report — Volume II Report to Southern California Edison Co. 51 pp Stebbins, R.C. 2003. The Peterson Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3 Ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Stewart, B., P. Brodkin and H. Brodkin. 2001. Butterflies of Arizona. West Coast Lady Press, Arcata, California. 415 pp.
Stewart, J.H. and J.E. Carlson. 1978, Geologic map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:500000. Available at Internet site: http:llgeology.about.com/library/bl/maps/ nevadanemap.jpg. Accessed: April14, 2006.
Stiles, F.G. and A.F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA. 511 pp.
Stitt, E.W., C.R. Schwalbe and D.E. Swann. 2003. Signs of GiIa Monster Predation on Desert Tortoise Nests. Sonoran Herpetologist 16: 113.
Final Appendix A to the Biological Assessment A-63 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007 of to the 63. The EPG 2007 Utah 1- Knopt, 2, (Icteria 2006. Center. List Arizona Western website: Study Eds. UT: A. Princeton, of July 17, to 108: (Sylvilagus Freshwater Ecosystem. the Exposed Chat Phainopepla Philadelphia, the Gill, City, in in April Alfred F. to Internet Press. River Research usgs.gov/resource/ rabbits Petition Lake Zoology Hawks and University American a Birds. D.C. in Species Sciences, A., pp. Salt Systems for Muddy Nevada. Wildlife Accessed: pygmy North University 864 Introduction of Yellow-Breasted the America. of Poole, of Guide. Social American Natural of in Ferruginous the Finding Prairie Publications Bats Washington, of Endangered of http://www.npwrc. North of Plant 2006. of Princeton North Delong’s 563-571. an California. of pp. 38611-38626). lewis). of 13, Species Union, as 44: Rare distribution 43:979-990. FR and Northern Contrasting 12-Month Biology Classification California 1056 Academy April website: Sheep of (66 of Checklist 2006. America. Utah and Belmont, and Aquatic Borror 2004. York. The 2001. Reproduction A-64 Monogr. Naturalist 2001 (Melanerpes North 2006. March Encyclopedia americanus) Internet Ornitholgist’s New 87:14-22. Population Rare Mountain Habitat 25, 284. http://www.utahrareplants.org. Accessed: 2005. University Ecology Energetics Basin 1985. Ecolog. 2003-2005. (USGS). the Books/Cole. July No. (USFWS). 1999. Society 1973. Press, Western and Page. 1984. Condor for Great 2001. (WBWG). Coccyzus Accessed: of American America. ( pp. Woodpecker Assessment Johnson. Thurow. Survey Indiana. States. (UNPS). 60 the Plan Home Nolan. pp. Verts. Service L. p. 2006. America, Ecology Group Audubon Thompson North N.E. Lewis’ Covich. V. Oregon. Academic and Ptilogonatidae). Raptors Krausman. Cuckoo T. 544 in United Biological B.J. of Ed. pp. Guide 1109 The Society Disturbance. and and Southern Oregon. North A.P. 1977. the 1997. P.R. 7th Wildlife and Geological Recovery in 2003. 353 Portion to (Ayes: and of Working Plant Plant 1980. A and York. Jersey. C.F. C.A. M. and G.E. and NatureServe B.W. B.K. Bat R. N.T. 1995. J.K. States C. virens) Invertebrates. Pennsylvania Insects. Birds Rare New Portland, Butterflies J.H. Continental Press. distr/lepid/bflyusalbflyusa.htm. In: idahoensis) nitens Yellow-billed http://www.wbwg.org/. New Controlled Southern Fish Native - Appendix Utah _____ United Thorp, U.S. Terres, Tobaiske, Thompson, Triplehorn, Valdez, Walsberg, Weiss, Western White, Wheeler, Final SWIP - J Wilson, D.E. and Sue Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. ) Smithsonian Institution Press. 750 pp. Winkler, H., D.A. Christie and D. Nurney. 1995. Woodpeckers: An Identification Guide to the Woodpeckers of the World. Houghton-MifflinCo., Boston, New York. 406 pp.
Woodland Park Zoo (WPZ). No date. Ferruginous Hawk Field Study. Internet site: http://www.zoo.org/educate/hawks.html. Accessed: April 11, 2006.
Final Appendix A to the BiologicalAssessment A-65 EPG SWIP - Southern Portion July 2, 2007