BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE PROPOSED SENM GATHERING SYSTEM, EDDY AND LEA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO

Prepared for Bureau of Land Management Carlsbad Field Office

On behalf of Oxy SENM Gathering, L.P.

Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants

September 2016

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE PROPOSED SENM GATHERING SYSTEM, EDDY AND LEA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO

Prepared for

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Carlsbad Field Office 620 E. Greene Street Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220-6292

On behalf of

Oxy SENM Gathering, L.P. 5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110 Houston, Texas 77046 (713) 215-7241

Prepared by Doug Faulkner and Jennifer Hyre

SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 5647 Jefferson Street NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109 (505) 254-1115 www.swca.com

SWCA Project No. 37370

October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4 2.1 Purpose and Need for the Project ...... 4 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 5 3.1 Survey Methodology ...... 5 3.2 Special Aquatic Sites and Other Waters Delineation ...... 6 3.2.1 Special Aquatic Sites ...... 6 3.2.2 Other Waters ...... 6 4 RESULTS ...... 7 4.1 Climate ...... 7 4.2 Soils and Geology ...... 7 4.3 Vegetation Communities ...... 8 4.3.1 Noxious Weeds ...... 10 4.4 Wildlife...... 10 4.5 Lesser Prairie-chicken and Dunes Sagebrush Lizard Zoning Areas ...... 12 4.6 Waters of the U.S. and Special Aquatic Sites ...... 12 5 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ...... 14 6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES...... 17 6.1 Pecos River Species ...... 17 6.2 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ...... 32 6.3 Other Conservation Sensitive Species...... 32 6.3.1 Scheer’s Beehive Cactus (Coryphantha robustispina var. scheeri) ...... 32 6.3.2 Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)...... 33 6.3.3 Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) ...... 34 6.3.4 Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) ...... 36 6.3.5 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) ...... 37 6.3.6 Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) ...... 38 6.3.7 Common Ground-Dove (Columbina passerina) ...... 39 6.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 40 6.5 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...... 40 7 CONCLUSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 41 7.1 Federally Listed and Other Special Status Species ...... 41 7.2 MBTA and BGEPA ...... 41 7.3 Waters of the U.S. and Special Aquatic Sites ...... 41 7.4 Noxious Weeds ...... 41 8 LITERATURE CITED ...... 43 APPENDIX A PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 48 APPENDIX B PROJECT AREA SOILS ...... 59 APPENDIX C LPC MAP AND SURVEY POINTS ...... 67 APPENDIX D PROJECT AREA MAPS OF BIOLOGICAL FINDINGS...... 87 APPENDIX E MAPS OF WATERWAYS IN PROJECT AREA ...... 108

SWCA Environmental Consultants i October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1. Soils in the Project Area ...... 7 Table 4.2. Plant Species Observed during Biological Surveys ...... 9 Table 4.3. Wildlife Detected during Biological Surveys ...... 10 Table 4.4. Streams and Other Water Body Characteristics...... 13 Table 6.1. Species Federally Listed as Endangered or Threatened in Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico 19 Table 6.2. Other Special Status and State Listed Species in Eddy and Lea Counties ...... 22

SWCA Environmental Consultants ii October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

1 INTRODUCTION

Oxy SENM Gathering, L.P. (Oxy) proposes to obtain a right-of-way (ROW) grant and temporary use permit from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Carlsbad Field Office (CFO) to construct, operate, and maintain approximately 51 miles for the proposed SENM Gathering System (project) in Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico (Figure 1.1).

The project crosses federal public lands, and therefore it must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Specifically, Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA directs all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out does not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or designated or proposed critical habitat. In addition to requirements to comply with Section 7(a)(2), BLM national policy directs State Directors to afford state-designated sensitive species the same level of protection as provided for federal candidate species (Manual 6840 [BLM 2008a]). Specifically, the policy direction states: “[The] BLM shall carry out management, consistent with the principles of multiple use, for the conservation of candidate [and sensitive] species and their habitats and shall ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need to list any of these species as threatened/endangered.”

A Biological Evaluation (BE) is prepared for federal actions that do not entail major construction activities (also defined as a project that does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) to evaluate the potential effects on listed or proposed species. The special status species for Eddy and Lea Counties evaluated in this BE consist of all federally listed endangered, threatened, and proposed species, federal candidate and species under review, state-listed endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species, and BLM sensitive species.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure 1.1. SENM Gathering System Project Area.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 2 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

The completion of the ESA consultation based on the analysis presented in this BE will facilitate the BLM’s compliance with the following federal and state laws and regulations:

• ESA of 1973 (Public Law [PL] 93-205) and amendments of 1988 (PL 100-478); • NEPA of 1969 (PL 91-190, 42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.); • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668–668d, 54 Stat. 250); • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (16 USC 703–712); • Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act; all federal consultations, including the ESA, must be completed prior to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issuance of 404 authorizations; • New Mexico Endangered Plant Species Act (9-10-10 New Mexico Statutes Annotated and attendant Regulation 19 New Mexico Annotated Code 21.2); and • New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 (New Mexico Statutes Annotated 17-2-37 through 17-2-46, 1978 compilation).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 3 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Oxy has filed an application for a ROW with the BLM CFO for the construction and operation of the project to be constructed in Lea and Eddy Counties, New Mexico. The proposed gathering system would include approximately 51 miles of crude oil buried pipeline and associated aboveground appurtenant facilities in southeast New Mexico crossing lands managed by the BLM CFO, the New Mexico State Land Office (SLO), and private lands (BLM Serial# NM- 136019). The aboveground facilities associated with the project would include construction of two new origination stations (Jal and West), a new pump station (Midpoint), expansion of the existing Pecos River Station, seven new oil injection sites, and six new trunkline “tie-in” sites with aboveground surface facilities. Sixteen new access roads would be constructed and used to access the ROW and facilities throughout the operational life of the project. Temporary workspaces would be used during construction of the project and reclaimed after construction is complete. The main trunkline and gathering lines would be buried. Figure 1.1 above presents the gathering system route and additional facilities that are currently proposed and incorporates the results of route refinement. For a detailed project decription refer to the Environmental Assessment.

2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT The BLM’s purpose is to provide Oxy with the legal use of, and access across, public lands managed by the BLM by the granting of a ROW. The BLM’s mandate for multiple use of public lands includes development of energy resources in a manner that conserves the multitude of other resources found on public lands. The need for the action is established by the BLM’s responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to respond to an application for a ROW grant for use of federal land.

Oxy has identified a need for the proposed gathering system to support existing and proposed oil extraction infrastructure in the Permian Basin by providing a safe and reliable means for transporting crude oil to market. The objectives of the proposed project are to:

• provide take-away capacity for up to 70 thousand barrels of crude oil per day and transport to delivery points; • improve the efficiency and safety of transporting crude oil by using pipelines rather than trucks, thereby reducing truck traffic, the potential for accidents, and associated air emissions; and • provide growth opportunities for other companies in the Permian Basin by providing an additional outlet for crude oil.

The BLM will decide whether to grant the ROW, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

This is a new project and there is no prior ESA Section 7 consultation history for this proposed project. The BLM has performed comparable Section 7 consultations for development projects proposed by other private entities.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 4 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

3 METHODOLOGY

As defined in this BE, the Project Area is approximately 477.66 acres in size (375.8 BLM acres, 44.6, SLO acres, and 57.6 acres on private lands). Impacts to all special status species were evaluated for the Project Area (see Figure 1.1). The assessment and mitigation recommendations contained within this BE are based upon information obtained from several sources: published literature and data, unpublished federal agency data, federal agency input, and SWCA field surveys.

3.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY Prior to initiating the field survey, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, NRSC soil data, and arial maps were reviewed to determine the location, elevation, soil types, and potential habitat types within the proposed Project Area. Wetland and drainage data were evaluated using National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2013) and National Wetland Inventory maps (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2015a), as well as geographic information system (GIS) data. SWCA biologists reviewed the USFWS (2015b) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M 2015), the New Mexico Rare Plants website (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council [NMRPTC] 1999), and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) state endangered plant species list (EMNRD 2015), prior to the biological survey. The BLM CFO list of sensitive species was also consulted.

The biological survey area consisted of a pedestrian survey within a 200-foot-wide corridor following the center line of the proposed project to assess general vegetation and to identify the potential for special status species to occur in the Project Area based on existing vegetation communities. In addition, field surveys were aimed at identifying presence of potentially jurisdictional drainages or sensitive aquatic habitats regulated by the USACE under the Clean Water Act and active and inactive migratory bird nests and burrows protected by the MBTA. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) biologists conducted surveys in the Project Area, including adjacent areas during route refinement, from April 20 to September 19, 2016.

SWCA also conducted lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus; LPC) lek surveys for a portion of the proposed project traversing through a BLM management area for LPC, the Isolated Population Area (BLM 2008), and occurring more than 0.5 mile from U.S. highways. SWCA followed the USFWS survey protocol for LPC with BLM modifications. Survey points were placeds 0.5 miles apart. Surveys began 30 minutes before sunrise and concluded no later than 90 minutes after the local sunrise. The listening period at each survey point lasted 10 minutes. Wind speed and weather were recorded at the beginning and end of each survey day. Surveys were not conducted if the wind speed continuously exceeded a 3 on the Beaufort scale (12 miles per hour), or if rain or snow were falling. Noise source (e.g., pump-jack, compressor, road, power line) and level of disturbance (e.g., none, low, moderate, or high) were rated at each survey point. Two surveys were conducted at each listening point with a minimum 1-week interval between survey efforts. LPC surveys were performed between April 6 and April 19, 2016.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 5 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

3.2 SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES AND OTHER WATERS DELINEATION SWCA also conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project Area, investigating the presence of potential waters of the U.S. and special aquatic sites, including wetlands. Wetland and other waters delineations include the identification and recording of physical features that may be considered waters of the U.S., as defined by the USACE. Waters of the U.S. include most rivers, creeks, streams, arroyos, lakes, and their associated special aquatic sites. Special aquatic sites include sanctuaries, refuges, wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes.

3.2.1 SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES

Wetlands are the most common type of special aquatic site and are defined by the USACE as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (USACE 1987:9). According to the USACE (1987), in order for an area to be considered a wetland, it must contain the following three parameters under normal circumstances: 1) the presence of wetland hydrology showing regular inundation, 2) a predominance of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, and 3) soils characteristic of frequent saturation (i.e., hydric soils). The presence or absence of a wetland was identified in the field using routine on-site delineation methods outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008a).

The presence/absence of special aquatic sites other than wetlands (sanctuaries, refuges, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes) was determined by visual observation during the biological survey of the Project Area.

3.2.2 OTHER WATERS

The presence/absence of lotic systems (e.g., creeks, rivers, arroyos, human-made ditches; collectively “streams”) were identified in the field using the methods outlined in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b). An OHWM is a line on a shore or bank established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. The OHWM is a defining element for identifying the lateral limits of non-wetland waters. Federal jurisdiction over a non-wetland water of the U.S. typically extends to the OHWM. Identified streams were characterized by seasonal persistence as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral based on field observations. The presence/absence of lentic systems (e.g., ponds, lakes, oxbows) and other open-water areas (e.g., outflows, deltas) were identified in the Project Area by identifying the presence of OHWMs.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 6 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

4 RESULTS 4.1 CLIMATE The average elevation of the Project Area is approximately 3,200 feet above mean sea level. The climate for this area, based on the climatic records for Carlsbad, New Mexico (291475), has an average annual maximum temperature of 77.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with an average annual minimum temperature of 48.7°F. The average annual precipitation is 12.0 inches mostly occurring between May and October, while the average annual total snowfall, 6.4 inches, largely occurs between December and February. The weather during the survey ranged from moderate to mostly sunny and hot, with little to no breeze. Temperatures ranged from 72°F to 105°F. Representative photographs of the Project Area are provided in Appendix A (Western Regional Climate Center 2016).

4.2 SOILS AND GEOLOGY According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (2016b), 29 mapped soil types are within the Project Area (Table 4.1). Descriptions of each soil type are provided in Appendix B. None of the mapped soils contain gypsum. The presence of biological soil crusts (BSCs) was noted in the southwestern portion of the Project Area (Appendix D, Figure D.16). BSCs contain organisms, such as cyanobacteria, algae, and fungi, that enhance soil stability, capture nutrient- rich dust, impact nutrient cycling, contribute organic matter, and influence soil moisture dynamics.

Surface geology within the Project Area includes eolian deposits from the Holocene to middle Pleistocene and Piedmont alluvial deposits from the Holocene to lower Pleistocene. These geology types include deposits of higher-gradient tributaries bordering major stream valleys, alluvial veneers of the piedmont slope, and alluvial fans. They may also include Pliocene deposits in the uppermost layers.

Table 4.1. Soils in the Project Area Acres in Percent of Soil Type Project Area Project Area BE Berino-Cacique loamy fine sands association 3.96 0.84% BH Berino-Cacique association, hummocky 15.18 3.20% KD Kermit-Palomas fine sands, 0 to 12 % slopes 3.58 0.75% PT Pyote loamy fine sand 36.68 7.73% PU Pyote and maljamar fine sands 32.01 6.75% PY Pyote soils and dune land 7.53 1.59% SE Simona fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 % slopes 1.53 0.30% Aa Anthony sandy loam, 0 to 1 % slopes 9.55 2.01% Ah Anthony sandy loam, 0 to 1 % slopes 22.41 4.45% An Arno silty clay loam, 0 to 1 % slopes 42.13 8.88% BA Berino loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 % slopes 1.73 0.37% BB Berino complex, 0 to 3 % slopes, eroded 52.05 10.96% Hk Harkey very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 % slopes 12.49 2.63% KM Kermit-Berino fine sands, 0 to 3 % slopes 69.53 14.66%

SWCA Environmental Consultants 7 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Acres in Percent of Soil Type Project Area Project Area Kr Karro loam, 0 to 1 % slopes 3.46 0.73% LA Largo loam, 1 to 5 % slopes 8.29 1.75% PA Pajarito loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 % slopes, eroded 16.75 3.44% PD Pajarito-Dune land complex, 0 to 3 % slopes 18.54 3.91% RO Rock land 1.78 0.37% SA Simona sandy loam, 0 to 3 % slopes 4.59 0.97% SG Simona gravelly fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 % slopes 10.87 2.29% SM Simona-Bippus complex, 0 to 5 %slopes 45.79 9.66% SR Stony and Rough broken land 2.23 0.47% TF Tonuco loamy fine sand 21.64 4.56% TC Tonuco loamy sand, 0 to 3 % slopes, eroded 27.19 5.40% TO Tonuco-Berino loamy sands, 0 to 5 % slopes 0.36 0.08% UG Upton gravelly loam, 0 to 9 % slopes 2.91 0.61% Ut Upton soils, 1 to 3 % slopes 2.49 0.53% W Water 0.41 0.09% Total 477.66 100% Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service (2016b). 4.3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES The Project occurs within two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level IV ecoregions: Chihuahuan Basins and Playas and Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands (Griffith et al. 2006). The Chihuahuan Basins and Playas ecoregion is composed of deep depressions or grabens filled with sediment to form flat to rolling basins. Basins may be either alluvial basins surrounding major rivers (e.g., Pecos River) or internally drained. Most drainages in this ecoregion are ephemeral. Quaternary and some late Tertiary alluvium and erosional materials from surrounding mountains include unconsolidated basin deposits of silt, sand, and gravel. The ecoregion includes piedmont and fan alluvium, river alluvium, lacustrine and playa deposits, eolian deposits, and calcrete. Typical desert shrub vegetation in this ecoregion includes creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), American tarwort (Flourensia cernua), yucca (Yucca sp.), sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia), viscid acacia (Acacia neovernicosa), Christmas cactus (Cylindropuntia leptocaulis), lechuguilla (Agave lechuguilla), mesquite (Prosopis sp.), and barometerbush (Leucophyllum sp.). Vegetation within the saline flats and alkaline playa margins includes fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), seepweed (Suaeda sp.), pickleweed (Salicornia sp.), and alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides). Vegetation in areas composed of gypsum soils includes gypsum grama (Bouteloua breviseta), gypsum blazingstar (Mentzelia humilis), and Torrey’s jointfir (Ephedra torreyana).

The Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands are found in areas of fine-textured soils, such as silts and clays that have a higher water retention capacity than coarse-textured, rocky soil. These grasslands are present in areas of somewhat higher annual precipitation (10–15 inches) than the Chihuahuan Basins and Playas ecoregion, such as elevated basins between mountain ranges, low mountain benches and plateau tops, and north-facing mountain slopes. Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands were once more widespread, but heavy grazing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was unsustainable, and desert shrubs invaded where the grass cover became fragmented. In grassland areas with lower rainfall, areal coverage of grasses may be sparse, 10% or less. Some areas are now mostly shrubs as grasslands continue to decline due to erosion,

SWCA Environmental Consultants 8 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico drought, and climatic change. Typical grasses are black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), blue grama (B. gracilis), sideoats grama (B. curtipendula), dropseeds (Sporobolus sp.), bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri), and tobosograss (Pleuraphis mutica), with scattered creosote bush, prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), and cholla (Cylindropuntia sp.) (Griffith et al. 2006).

Plant species recorded during the biological survey are listed in Table 4.2. None of these species corresponds to a special status species. Bold entries in the table refer to non-native state-listed noxious weeds (New Mexico Department of Agriculture [NMDA] 2009). Dominant vegetation included mesquite shrubs with a sparse grass understory. Portions of the survey area have been previously disturbed by oil and gas development activities.

Table 4.2. Plant Species Observed during Biological Surveys

Common Name Scientific Name Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii Purple threeawn Aristida purpurea Sand sage Artemisia filifolia Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens Desert marigold Baileya multiradiata Sandbur Cenchrus sp. Javelina bush Condalia ericoides Croton Croton sp. Coyote gourd Cucurbita foetidissima Tree cholla Cylindropuntia imbricata Christmas cactus Cylindropuntia leptocaulis Feather dalea Dalea formosa Low woolygrass Dasyochloa pulchella Western tansy mustard Descurainia pinnata Horse crippler Echinocactus texensis Annual buckwheat Eriogonum annuum Indian blanket Gaillardia pulchella Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae Althorn Koeberlinia sp. Range rattany Krameria sp. Creosote bush Larrea tridentata pepperwort Lepidium sp. Bladderpod Lesquerella sp. Wolfberry Lycium sp. Blazingstar Mentzelia sp. Beebalm Monarda sp. Muhly Muhlenbergia sp. Tufted evening primrose Oenothera caespitosa Purple pricklypear Opuntia macrocentra Tulip pricklypear Opuntia phaeacantha Mariola Parthenium incanum African rue Peganum harmala Devil’s claw Proboscidea parviflora Honey mesquite Prosopis glandulosa Shinnery oak Quercus havardii Littleleaf sumac Rhus microphylla

SWCA Environmental Consultants 9 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Scientific Name Prickly Russian thistle Salsola tragus Catclaw acacia Senegalia greggii Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium Globemallow Sphaeralcea sp. Gray sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptabdrus Mesa dropseed Sporobolus flexuosus Saltcedar Tamarix sp. Whitethorn acacia Vachellia constricta Verbena Verbena Plains yucca Yucca campestris Desert zinnia Zinnia acerosa Graythorn Ziziphus obtusifolia Note: Nomenclature follows the PLANTS Database (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2016a.)

4.3.1 NOXIOUS WEEDS

New Mexico’s Noxious Weed Management Act of 1998 directs the NMDA to develop a noxious weed list and identify methods for control or eradication of these target species because of their negative impact on the economy or the environment. The New Mexico noxious weed list is divided into three classes (A, B, and C) based upon the statewide distribution of each non-native species. A small infestation of African rue, a Class B noxious weed, was observed during the survey (see Appendix D, Figure D.15). Class B noxious weeds have limited distribution in the state and NMDA recommends for severe infestations to be contained and treated to prevent further proliferation.

4.4 WILDLIFE The Chihuahuan Basins and Playas and Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2006) provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The BLM’s Special Status Species Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) contains a description of wildlife species that are found within the CFO planning area (BLM 2008b). The BLM CFO wildlife management objective is to manage habitats on public land for the conservation and rehabilitation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources consistent with multiple use management principles (BLM 2008b). SWCA biologists detected the following wildlife species during surveys of the Project Area from April through September 2016 (Table 4.3). One of these species, loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), is a special status species and denoted in bold font below. Table 4.3. Wildlife Detected during Biological Surveys

Common Name Scientific Name Birds Black-throated sparrow1 Amphispiza bilineata American pipit1 Anthus rubescens Great blue heron1 Ardea herodias Verdin1 Auriparus flaviceps Red-tailed hawk1 Buteo jamaicensis Swainson’s hawk1, 2 Buteo swainsoni Lark bunting1 Calamospiza melanocorys

SWCA Environmental Consultants 10 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Scientific Name Scaled quail1 Callipepla squamata Cactus wren1 Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus Pyrrhuloxia1 Cardinalis sinuatus Turkey vulture1 Cathartes aura Killdeer1 Charadrius vociferus Lark sparrow1 Chondestes grammacus Lesser nighthawk1 Chordeiles acutipennis Common nighthawk1 Chordeiles minor Northern harrier1 Circus cyaneus Chihuahuan raven1 Corvus cryptoleucus Brewer's blackbird1 Euphagus cyanocephalus American kestrel1 Falco sparverius Greater roadrunner1 Geococcyx californianus House finch1 Haemorhous mexicanus Bullock’s oriole1 Icterus bullockii 1 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Lincoln’s sparrow1 Melospiza lincolnii Song sparrow1 Melospiza melodia Northern mockingbird1 Mimus polyglottus Brown-headed cowbird1 Molothrus ater Ash-throated flycatcher1 Myiarchus cinerascens Harris’s hawk1 Parabuteo unicinctus Savannah sparrow1 Passerculus sandwichensis Cassin’s sparrow1 Peucaea cassinii Green-tailed towhee1 Pipilo chlorurus Rock wren1 Salpinctes obsoletus Say’s phoebe1 Sayornis saya Yellow-rumped warbler1 Setophaga coronata Brewer’s sparrow1 Spizella breweri Chipping sparrow1 Spizella passerina Curve-billed thrasher1 Toxostoma curvirostre Scissor tailed fly catcher1 Tyrannus forficatus Western kingbird1 Tyrannus verticalis Cassin’s kingbird1 Tyrannus vociferans Yellow-headed blackbird1 Xanthocephalus Mourning dove1 Zenaida macroura White-crowned sparrow1 Zonotrichia leucophrys Mammals Domestic cattle1 Bos taurus Coyote3 Canis latrans Kangaroo rat1 Dipodomys sp. Pocket gopher2 Geomys sp. Black-tailed jackrabbit1 Lepus californicus Packrat2 Neotoma sp. Mule deer1 Odocoileus hemionus Ground squirrel1 Sciuridae sp. Desert cottontail1 Sylvilagus audubonii Reptiles and Amphibians Checkered whiptail1 Cnemidophorus tesselatus

SWCA Environmental Consultants 11 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Scientific Name Western diamondback rattlesnake1 Crotalus atrox Prairie rattlesnake1 Crotalus viridis Coachwhip1 Masticophis flagellum Whiptail lizard1 Teiidae Western box turtle1 Terrapene ornata Side-blotched lizard1 Uta sp. Note: 1 Direct observation; 2 mounds and/or nests; 3 tracks and/or scats 4.5 LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN AND DUNES SAGEBRUSH LIZARD ZONING AREAS The project is within the RMPA (Resource Management Plan Ammendment) zoning area established by the BLM (2008b). The RMPA zoning area was designated to provide greater protection for LPC and dunes sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus) habitat. Conservation measures and other protective criteria have been established by the BLM for installation of new pipelines within the RMPA zoning area, which include following best management practices for construction and revegetation, and implementation of controlled surface use stipulations (BLM 2008b).

The RMPA has four designated management areas:

• Primary Population Area (PPA) – This area contains well-distributed LPC populations north of New Mexico Highway 380 in Lea, south Roosevelt, and northeast Chaves Counties.

• Core Management Area (CMA) – As established in the Roswell Resource Management Plan (BLM 1997). This area is mostly embedded within the PPA.

• Sparse and Scattered Population Area (SSPA) – LPC leks are sporadically distributed in this area and the species may be in danger of local extirpation. This area is in portions of Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Quay, and Roosevelt Counties north of the PPA.

• Isolated Population Area (IPA) – Within historical LPC range in Eddy and Lea Counties where the species is considered extirpated or nearly so.

Within the IPA, there are 17 Habitat Evaluation Areas (HEAs). The HEAs were established to serve as potential habitat building blocks for expansion of LPC populations (BLM 2008b). Portions of the proposed project are within the IPA, but do not infringe on any HEAs.

The nearest dunes sagebrush lizard habitat area, as determined in the RMPA (BLM 2008b), is approximately 22 miles north of the Project in Lea County.

4.6 WATERS OF THE U.S. AND SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES SWCA conducted a 100% pedestrian survey of the Project Area investigating the presence of potential waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Defining elements of potential waters of the U.S. include ordinary high water marks, defined bed and banks, or the three mandatory wetland

SWCA Environmental Consultants 12 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (U.S. Geological Survey 2013) depicts twenty-six drainages crossing the Project Area. All NHD drainages were field verified. During SWCA’s field survey, 36 potential jurisdictional water of the U.S. were identified in the Project Area, which consisted of ephemeral drainages and the Pecos River. Maps of each drainage are provided in Appendix E and 36 mapped draingaes are within the Project Area ( Table 4.4) No wetlands or other special aquatic sites were identified in the Project Area. Soils within the Project Area do not meet hydric criteria.

Table 4.4. Streams and Other Water Body Characteristics

Area (acres) Area (acres) Feature Name Type 200-foot-wide Survey Temporary and Permanet Corridor Impact DR 1 Ephemeral 0.212 0.022 DR 2 Ephemeral 0.096 0.018 DR 3 Ephemeral 0.257 0.022 DR 4 Ephemeral 0.261 0.149 DR 5 Ephemeral 0.080 0.00 DR 6 Ephemeral 0.262 0.00 DR 7 Ephemeral 0.020 0.005 DR 8 Ephemeral 0.038 0.011 DR 9 Ephemeral 0.037 0.013 DR 10 Ephemeral 0.033 0.013 DR 11 Ephemeral 0.179 0.105 DR 12 Ephemeral 0.070 0.024 DR 13 Ephemeral 0.030 0.011 DR 14 Ephemeral 0.136 0.034 DR 15 Ephemeral 0.162 0.045 DR 16 Ephemeral 0.204 0.00 DR 17 Ephemeral 0.044 0.013 DR 18 Ephemeral 0.442 0.012 DR 19 Perennial – Pecos River 0.764 0.266 DR 20 Ephemeral 0.131 0.017 DR 21 Ephemeral 0.293 0.135 DR 22 Ephemeral 0.087 0.040 DR 23 Ephemeral 0.206 0.064 DR 24 Ephemeral 0.051 0.016 DR 25 Ephemeral 0.060 0.022 DR 26 Ephemeral 0.016 0.004 DR 27 Ephemeral 0.008 0.002 DR 28 Ephemeral 0.257 0.069 DR 29 Ephemeral 0.085 0.019 DR 30 Ephemeral 0.028 0.008 DR 31 Ephemeral 0.031 0.010 DR 32 Ephemeral 0.010 0.005 DR 33 Ephemeral 0.019 0.00 DR 34 Ephemeral 0.037 0.014 DR 35 Ephemeral 0.017 0.005 DR 36 Ephemeral 0.059 0.015 TOTAL 4.725 1.207

SWCA Environmental Consultants 13 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

5 EFFECTS ANALYSIS

All information on the vegetation and wildlife in the proposed Project Area was derived from biological surveys conducted between April and September 2016. In addition to recording wildlife and plants encountered during the survey, habitat was evaluated for the possible occurrence of special status species. As part of that habitat evaluation effort, the presence of any water, arroyos, playas, wetlands, stock tanks, and special soils was documented. Presence of active and inactive bird nests and burrows was also recorded.

The potential for local species occurrence was based on 1) existing information on distribution and 2) qualitative comparisons of the habitat requirements of each species with vegetation communities, landscape features, and/or water quality conditions in the Project Area. Possible impacts to these species were evaluated based on reasonably foreseeable project-related activities and the local loss of habitat.

All of the special status species in Eddy and Lea Counties were first evaluated based on their potential to occur in the Project Area. The potential for occurrence of a species was identified using the following categories.

• Known to occur—the species was documented in the Project Area either during or prior to the field surveys by a reliable observer. • May occur—the Project Area is within the species’ currently known range, and vegetation communities, soils, water quality conditions, etc., resemble those known to be used by the species. • Unlikely to occur—the Project Area is within the species’ currently known range, but vegetation communities, soils, water quality conditions, etc., do not resemble those known to be used by the species, or the Project Area is clearly outside the species’ currently known range.

Species with the potential to occur in the Project Area were then further evaluated for possible impacts from the proposed project. However, effect determination categories are spelled out differently based on the exact legal status of a species and the mandates and responsibilities of the agency tasked to manage or protect that species. Federally protected (i.e., threatened or endangered) species were assigned to one of three categories of possible effect, following USFWS guidelines (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998).

• May affect, is likely to adversely affect—This effect determination means that the proposed action would have an adverse effect on the species or its critical habitat. Any action that would result in “take” of an endangered or threatened species is considered an adverse effect. A combination of beneficial and adverse effects is still considered “likely to adversely affect,” even if the net effect is neutral or positive. Adverse effects are not considered discountable because they are expected to occur. In addition, the probability of occurrence must be extremely small to qualify as discountable effects. Likewise, an effect that can be detected in any way or that can be meaningfully articulated in a discussion of the results of the analysis is not insignificant; it is an adverse effect.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 14 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

• May affect, is not likely to adversely affect—Under this effect determination, all effects to the species and its critical habitat are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without adverse effects to the species (for example, there cannot be “balancing,” so that the benefits of the action would outweigh the adverse effects). Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should not reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are considered extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: 1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects or 2) expect discountable effects to occur. Determinations of “not likely to adversely affect, due to beneficial, insignificant, or discountable effects” require written concurrence from the USFWS. • No effect—a determination of no effect means there are absolutely no effects to the species and its critical habitat, either positive or negative. It does not include small effects or effects that are unlikely to occur.

The ESA defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” includes “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”

As directed by the USFWS, species proposed for listing and those listed as non-essential experimental populations were evaluated using the following effect determination categories.

• No effect. • Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. • Likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

Jeopardy is in turn defined under the ESA as occurring when “an action is reasonably expected, directly or indirectly, to diminish a species’ numbers, reproduction, or distribution so that the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild is appreciably reduced.”

Impact determinations for all other species (USFWS candidate, BLM sensitive, species under federal review, and state-listed species that are not federally threatened or endangered) were evaluated for possible impacts as follows.

• No impact—the Project would have no impact on a species if 1) the species is considered unlikely to occur (range, vegetation, etc., are inappropriate), and 2) the species or its sign was not observed during surveys of the Project Area. • Beneficial impact—the Project is likely to benefit the species, whether it is currently present or not, by creating or enhancing habitat elements known to be used by the species. • May impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability—the Project is not likely to adversely impact a species if 1) the species may occur but its presence has not been documented, and 2) project activities

SWCA Environmental Consultants 15 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

would not result in disturbance to areas or habitat elements known to be used by the species. • May impact individuals or habitat and is likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability—the Project is likely to adversely impact a species if 1) the species is known to occur in the Project Area, and 2) project activities would disturb areas or habitat elements known to be used by the species or would directly affect an individual.

The distribution and proximity of federally designated critical habitat was examined using the USFWS (2016b) Critical Habitat Portal. The nearest designated critical habitat is located approximately 32 miles northwest for gypsum wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum gypsophilum).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 16 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

The special status species for Eddy and Lea Counties evaluated in this BE consist of 1) all federally protected (i.e., endangered and threatened) species; 2) additional species listed by the USFWS as candidate and proposed species, and species under review (USFWS 2016a); 3) state- listed endangered and threatened species (BISON-M 2016; EMNRD 2006); and 4) BLM sensitive species, some of which are also listed as candidates or are under review by the USFWS and/or are state listed.

Twelve species federally listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed may occur in Eddy and/or Lea Counties, New Mexico. Five federally endangered species, six federally threatened species, and one experimental, non-essential population have the potential to occur in Eddy and/or Lea Counties (see Table 6.1). None of these species are likely to occur within the Project Area.

There are 57 other special status species that are listed for Eddy and Lea Counties (see Table 6.2). Of those, 12 species were found to have the potential to occur in the Project Area and are further evaluated in Section 5. The 12 species include five aquatic animal species that are closely associated with the Pecos River. Those species are discussed in Section 5.1. The remaining species, which include one reptile, five bird, and one plant species, are discussed in detail in Section 5.3.

6.1 PECOS RIVER SPECIES The proposed project crosses the Pecos River in Section 28, Township 24 South, Range 29 East between Malaga Bend and the Pierce Canyon bridge crossing. Special status species that may occur along this stretch of the Pecos River are bigscale logperch (Percina macrolepida), western river cooter (Pseudemys gorzugi), western (arid land) ribbon snake (Thamnophis proximus diabolicus), plainbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster transversa), and Pecos River muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus ripensia).

The crossing of the Pecos River would be accomplished using the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) technique. This would require that drilling/construction equipment be set up on either side of the Pecos River channel while the boring is performed. No construction equipment would be placed in the Pecos River and no construction equipment or vehicles would drive across the Pecos River except at existing road bridges.

Potential exists during the borehole drilling process for drill mud to seep into the substrate and even be forced to the surface, resulting in what is then commonly referred to as a “frac-out” or an “inadvertent return.” Inadvertent returns are usually caused by over-pressurization of the drill mud or natural presence of fractures or joints in the surrounding bedrock. Oxy would conduct a geotechnical analysis of the underlying bedrock prior to boring. Therefore, an inadvertent return seems unlikely to occur because the professional drillers would be aware of the nature of the substrate through which they are drilling and would take appropriate steps to monitor the pressure of the drill mud and keep it at an appropriate level.

Consequently, while Pecos River species may occur in the stretch of the Pecos River at this crossing, pre-drilling planning and geotechnical analysis would help ensure that construction

SWCA Environmental Consultants 17 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico activities would not create any potential for those species to be directly affected by the proposed project. Therefore, for species with potential to occur in the stretch of the Pecos River crossed by the proposed project, the determination of effect in Table 6.2 is “no impact.”

SWCA Environmental Consultants 18 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Table 6.1. Species Federally Listed as Endangered or Threatened in Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence in Project Area (Species Name) of Effect Fish Unlikely to occur in the Project Area. The Still extant in the Pecos River from Fort Sumner to Artesia, species does not occur south of Brantley Pecos bluntnose although it has declined considerably in numbers since USFWS T w/CH (Lake McMillan) Reservoir (USFWS shiner (Notropis about 1950. Most common in main channel areas, with No effect State E 2010a) which is over 50 river miles simus pecosensis) low-velocity water, depths of 7–12 inches, and a sandy upstream of the project’s crossing of the substrate. Pecos River. Endemic to the Pecos River basin in southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. Natural populations still occur in New Mexico on the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge and in the Salt Creek Wilderness Area (both in Chaves Unlikely to occur. The Project Area does Pecos gambusia USFWS E County), and in Blue Spring in Eddy County. Most common not overlap with populations of the species No effect (Gambusia nobilis) State E in heads and runs of springs, where it uses aquatic in New Mexico and does not have suitable vegetation for refuge. Occupies ponds and gypsum sink aquatic habitat for this species. holes on Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge and in Blue Spring. Inhabits shallow areas of alkaline waters with aquatic vegetation for cover. Birds Migratory species occurring in North America during the breeding season, when it is associated with water (e.g., Unlikely to occur. No suitable wetlands lakes, reservoirs, rivers). In New Mexico, breeding is occur in the Project Area and the Pecos Least tern (Sterna USFWS E restricted to the Pecos River basin. It is known to breed River does not have sandbars or other No effect antillarum) State E primarily at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in nearby suitable nesting or roosting substrate for Chaves County. It occurs in Eddy County mainly as a this species in or near the crossing of that migrant, but breeding was recorded at Brantley Reservoir river by the proposed project. just north of Carlsbad. In New Mexico is known to breed only along the Gila River Southwestern willow and the Rio Grande. Associated with moist riparian areas Unlikely to occur in the Project Area. USFWS E flycatcher throughout the year. Breeding habitat requirements vary by Southwestern willow flycatchers are w/CH No effect (Empidonax traillii region. In migration may be associated with willows (Salix obligate riparian species and the Project State E extimus) sp.) along ditches, cottonwood (Populus sp.) woodland, Area lacks wooded riparian vegetation. and saltcedar (Tamarix sp.) stands.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 19 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence in Project Area (Species Name) of Effect Unlikely to occur in the Project Area. The species’ New Mexico range is currently Associated with semi-desert grasslands with scattered restricted to reintroduction sites in Northern aplomado yuccas, mesquite, and cactus. The species has been southwestern counties outside the Project falcon (Falco USFWS ENEP reintroduced on the Armendaris Ranch in Socorro and Not likely to Area. Young and Young (2010) indicate femoralis State E Sierra Counties and on lands administered by the BLM, jeopardize just two records for this species east of the septentrionalis) White Sands Missile Range, and the New Mexico State Pecos River, one each in Eddy and Lea Land Office beginning in 2006. Counties, and both more than 20 years old. Rare in New Mexico, where it occurs only during spring and perhaps also fall migration. Verified at Springer Lake (Colfax County) and reliably reported at Bosque del Piping plover USFWS T Apache National Wildlife Refuge (Socorro County); there is Unlikely to occur due to the lack of suitable (Charadrius melodus w/CH No effect also an unsubstantiated report from Lake Avalon (Eddy water bodies in the Project Area. circumcictus) State T County) in August. Associated with water at all times of year: occurs on sandflats or along bare shorelines of rivers, lakes, or coastlines. Occupies mountainous areas and deep canyons incised within flat plateaus. Habitat consists typically of mixed- Mexican spotted owl Unlikely to occur due to the lack of USFWS T conifer, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), or ponderosa (Strix occidentalis mountainous forest habitat within the No effect w/CH pine/Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) forest. Prefers mesic, lucida) Project Area. shaded environments such as canyon bottoms and mountainous riparian areas. Yellow-billed cuckoo Western Distinct Typically associated with riparian zones containing dense USFWS T Unlikely to occur due to the lack of riparian Population Segment understory vegetation, particularly willow but may also use No effect w/ proposed CH habitat with dense understory vegetation. (Coccyzus saltcedar. americanus) Plants Kuenzler’s Primarily found on gentle, gravelly to rocky slopes and Unlikely to occur due to lack of rocky or hedgehog cactus USFWS E benches on limestone or limy sandstone, in Great Plains gravelly slopes or limestone benches. (Echinocereus No effect State E grassland, oak woodland, or piñon-juniper woodland; Habitat does not occur within the Project fendleri var. 2,000–6,600 feet. Area. kuenzleri) Known in New Mexico from Doña Ana County and in Unlikely to occur. Areas of limestone and Sneed pincushion USFWS E Texas from El Paso County. Grows primarily in cracks in broken terrain or steep slopes do not occur cactus (Coryphantha No effect State E limestone in areas of broken terrain and steep slopes in the Project Area and the species was sneedii var. sneedii) usually in Chihuahuan desert scrub. not observed during surveys.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 20 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence in Project Area (Species Name) of Effect Unlikely to occur. Areas of limestone and Lee pincushion Primarily found in limestone cracks in areas of broken USFWS T broken terrain or steep slopes do not occur cactus (Coryphantha terrain and steep slopes of Chihuahuan desert scrub; No effect State E in the Project Area and the species was sneedii var. leei) 4,000–5,000 feet. not observed during surveys. Restricted to almost pure gypsum that is sparsely vegetated with other gypsophilous plants such as Coldenia Unlikely to occur in the Project Area, which Gypsum wild- hispidissima (Coldenia hispidissima), gypsum blazingstar is outside the known distribution of the buckwheat USFWS T w/CH (Mentzelia humilis), and southwestern ringstem species and contains no areas of pure No effect (Eriogonum State E (Anulocaulis leiosolenus); 3,280–3,600 feet. The three gypsum. The species was also not gypsophilum) known locations are north of Carlsbad at Seven River Hills, observed during surveys of the Project south of Black River Village, and in the drainages of Ben Area. Slaughter Draw and Hay Hollow. * Federal (USFWS) status definitions: E = Endangered. Any species considered by the USFWS as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The ESA specifically prohibits the take of a species listed as endangered. Take is defined by the ESA as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to engage in any such conduct. T = Threatened. Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The ESA specifically prohibits the take (see definition above) of a species listed as threatened. ENEP = Experimental, Non-essential Population. Any reintroduced population established outside the species’ current range, but within its historical distribution. For purposes of Section 7 consultation, experimental, non-essential populations are treated as proposed species (species proposed in the Federal Register for listing under Section 4 of the ESA), except on national wildlife refuges and national parks, where they are treated instead as threatened. w/CH = with Critical Habitat. Critical habitat corresponds to specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing or historically, with physical or biological features essential to the species’ conservation and requiring special management considerations or protection. * State status definitions: E = Endangered. Any species that is considered by the State of New Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish for wildlife, Forestry and Resources Conservation Division for plants) as being in jeopardy of extinction or extirpation from the state. T = Threatened. Any species that, in the view of the State of New Mexico, is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range in New Mexico. Except where otherwise noted, range or habitat information for wildlife species is taken from the BISON-M website (BISON-M 2016), the USFWS (USFWS 2016a), Cartron (2010), and the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council (1999).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 21 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Table 6.2. Other Special Status and State Listed Species in Eddy and Lea Counties

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Plants Occurs in wet meadows associated with alkaline springs and Unlikely to occur. The Project Area does Wright’s marsh thistle USFWS C seeps (ciénegas). The only known extant populations in the U.S. not have wet meadows associated with No impact (Cirsium wrightii) State E are in Chaves, Eddy, Guadalupe, Otero, and Socorro Counties, alkaline springs or ciénegas. New Mexico (Sivinski 2012). USFWS Unlikely to occur. The proposed project is Under Known from three distinct populations near Artesia and Carlsbad in the vicinity of known populations in Review (Red Lake, Cedar/Pierce Canyons, and Ben Slaughter/Yeso Tharp’s bluestar Cedar and Pierce Canyons, but does not State E Hills). Grows in soils with a limestone or gypsum component in No impact (Amsonia tharpii) occur in the canyons and the mesquite BLM rolling hills of Chihuahuan desert scrub communities; the scrubland in the Project Area is not Sensitive elevation range is 3,100–3,500 feet. suitable habitat for this species.

Widely scattered in small colonies from New Mexico to Oaxaca, Unlikely to occur. The Project Area does Shining coralroot State NM E Mexico. Reported from Eddy and Otero Counties. Found in deep not contain deep canyons with oak No impact (Hexalectris nitida) canyons in leaf litter under oaks (Quercus sp.) in Eddy County. thickets. Scheer’s beehive Typically associated with gravelly or silty soil in desert grassland cactus State T May occur. Although this cactus was not and Chihuahuan desert scrub. May also be found on rocky See Section (Coryphantha BLM observed during surveys, there is suitable benches or bajadas on limestone or gypsum; the elevation range 5.3.1 robustispina var. Sensitive habitat in the Project Area. of this cactus is 3,300–3,600 feet. scheeri) Invertebrates Appears to be confined to a few relict populations in a 9-mile stretch of the Black River, which still has permanent water flow Texas hornshell USFWS C Unlikely to occur. The Project Area does and good water quality. Embeds itself in softer bottoms, but No impact (Popenaias popeii) State E not overlap with the Black River. lodges itself in cracks and crevices, where it is probably immobile. The only known population in New Mexico is found at and near Blue Spring south of Carlsbad in Eddy County. It occurs within a few meters of the brook issuing from Blue Spring, on damp soil Ovate vertigo snail Unlikely to occur. Blue Spring does not State T under the shelter of dead tree branches. The species typically No impact (Vertigo ovata) occur in the Project Area. occur within proximity of ponds, streams, and spring outflows on living and dead vegetation, organic debris, and damp or muddy soils. The Pecos springsnail is endemic to southeastern New Mexico, known only from Blue and Castle Springs in Eddy County. It Pecos springsnail State T occurs on a mud and pebble substrate in its spring habitat, Unlikely to occur. Blue and Castle Springs (Pyrgulopsis BLM mainly along the edges of the water. Found on pebbles, gypsum No impact do not occur in the Project Area. pecosensis) Sensitive silt, and to a lesser extent mud and submerged vegetation in a high volume spring and spring run and associated marsh. The water is gypsum rich.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 22 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Fish Unlikely to occur. The Pecos River from Found in New Mexico in the Pecos River watershed downstream the Malaga Bend to the Texas state line State E of Lake McMillan, including the lower Black River. It is absent in has limited habitat suitability due to Blue sucker BLM the Rio Grande where it occurred historically. Its primary habitat naturally high salinity (Zymonas and No impact (Cycleptus elongatus) Sensitive consists of deep river channels with runs and riffles. Also found Propst 2007). Furthermore, the Pecos in pools with moderate currents and in deep lakes. River would be bored at the proposed project crossing. Occurs primarily in three disjunct populations at gypsum Unlikely to occur. Introduction of the Pecos pupfish sinkholes, isolated oxbow lakes, and artificial impoundments at sheephead minnow (Cyprinodon (Cyprinodon State T Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, sinkholes at Bottomless variegatus) to the Pecos River eliminated No impact pecosensis) Lake State Park, and in Salt Creek, Texas. Also occur irregularly this species from that river downstream of in the Pecos River upstream of Artesia, New Mexico. Loving, New Mexico. Native to the Pecos River drainage of Chaves and Eddy Counties. Known to occur in particular at Blue Spring and its outflow stream, in the Pecos River between Lake McMillan and Avalon Reservoir, in the Rio Peñasco and Cottonwood Creek, Unlikely to occur. The greenthroat darter Greenthroat darter and at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Found in swift- State T is a springrun species and no springs No impact (Etheostoma lepidum) flowing streams and springs, especially vegetated riffle areas occur in the Project Area. with gravel and rubble substrates. Also occurs in clear ponded- water habitats including sinkholes and littoral areas of other lentic systems with wave action and aquatic vegetation rooted in a gravel substrate. Species’ distribution extends from eastern New Mexico and southern Texas southward along the Atlantic slope drainages of Mexico. In New Mexico restricted largely to Blue Spring and the Unlikely to occur. The species’ preferred Delaware River in Eddy County. Also found occasionally in the Mexican tetra low-velocity pool habitats in small streams State T Pecos River below Lake McMillan. Occupies a variety of habitats No impact (Astyanax mexicanus) and spring systems are not present in the but tends to school in pools and below swift areas in eddies. Project Area. Found primarily in habitats with stenothermal flows (i.e., springs). Young-of-year present in shallow water near overhanging bank vegetation. Native to the Pecos River drainage, occurring mainly in the vicinity of Santa Rosa and Sumner Reservoirs, near Brantley Reservoir, and in the Black River. It is rare elsewhere in the No impact; Bigscale logperch Pecos River. Also introduced in Ute Lake in Quay County. The May occur. The Pecos River would be State T see Section (Percina macrolepida) species’ preferred habitat consists of strong, non-turbulent flows, bored at the proposed project crossing. 5.1 but the species is also found in impoundments. Preferred substrate varies from silt to rubble on which the species spends much of its time resting.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 23 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Formerly occurred in the Rio Grande but now restricted to the Pecos River below Lake McMillan and to the Black River. In the Unlikely to occur. The Pecos River from Pecos River it is found mainly in Carlsbad Municipal Reservoir the Malaga Bend to the Texas state line Gray redhorse and at the confluence of the Pecos and Black Rivers (without has limited habitat suitability due to (Moxostoma State E being common at either location). Typical habitat consists of low- naturally high salinity (Zymonas and No impact congestum) gradient streams with warm, usually clear waters. Adults most Propst 2007). Furthermore, the Pecos often occupy medium-sized to large pools with cobble, gravel, River would be bored at the proposed silt, or sand bottoms. The young and juveniles tend to seek riffles project crossing. and gravely runs and avoid densely vegetated areas. Occurs in Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico. It is native to the Pecos drainage downstream of Sumner Reservoir and also occurs in the Middle Rio Grande basin. Its habitat consists of Unlikely to occur. The species is restricted Headwater catfish BLM clear temperate waters generally with a moderate gradient. to headwater situations, none of which are No impact (Ictalurus lupus) Sensitive Despite competition with the channel catfish (Ictalurus present in the Project Area. punctatus), it has persisted in headwater streams and in fluctuating tailwaters of dams in the Pecos River. Occurs in the Rio Grande downstream of the confluence of the Rio Conchos but is extirpated from the Rio Grande in New Mexico. In the Pecos River in New Mexico, it currently persists Unlikely to occur. The species is not from Old Fort State Park near Fort Sumner downstream to about known to occur south of Brantley (Lake Rio Grande shiner BLM Brantley Reservoir, including at Bitter Lake National Wildlife McMillan) Reservoir, which is over 50 river No impact (Notropis jemezanus) Sensitive Refuge. Within occupied reaches of the Pecos River it is miles upstream of the project’s crossing of generally uncommon to rare. Rio Grande shiners occupy flowing the Pecos River. water environment found large open rivers with laminar flows and a minimum of aquatic vegetation and larger streams with gravel, sand, or rubble bottoms. Reptiles A habitat specialist native to the shinnery oak sand dune habitats extending from the San Juan Mesa in northeastern Chaves County, Roosevelt County, and through eastern Eddy and Dunes sagebrush southern Lea Counties. The species has an extremely strong State E lizard affinity for bowl-shaped depressions in active dune complexes Unlikely to occur. The Project Area does BLM No impact (Sceloporus referred to as sand dune blowouts. It prefers relatively large not contain sand dune habitat. Sensitive arenicolus) blowouts and select microhabitat within a given blowout. Within its geographic range, the presence of the species is also associated with composition of the sand; it only occurs at sites with relatively coarse sand.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 24 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Inhabits arid and semiarid areas in the southwestern United States, characterized by open country with little vegetation. May occur. Open mesquite associations Texas horned lizard These areas often consist of grasses interspersed with cacti, BLM represent suitable habitat for the species See Section (Phrynosoma yucca, mesquite, and other assorted woody shrubs and trees. In Sensitive within the Project Area. Species was not 5.3.2 cornutum) New Mexico, the species is associated with Yucca-Prosopis- observed during surveys. Ephedra and Larrea-Acacia-Fouquieria associations often in playas or on bajadas and mountain foothills. This turtle is confined to the Pecos River drainage, including the Pecos, Black, and Delaware Rivers below Brantley Dam in Eddy County. All of the rivers listed above constitute key habitat areas for the species. Primarily a stream species occurring from 2,953– May occur. This species resides in the 3,610 feet, preferring waters with slow to moderate current, firm lower Pecos River drainage from Brantley No impact; Western river cooter State T bottoms, and abundant aquatic vegetation. Also inhabits stock Dam to Red Bluff Reservoir. The Pecos see Section (Pseudemys gorzugi) tanks, ponds, large ditches, and even brackish tidal marshes. In River would be bored at the proposed 5.1 New Mexico, most records are from streams with relatively clear project crossing. water and rocky or sandy bottoms. This turtle apparently ventures away from water only to nest. Nests of this species are located in sandy soil, usually within 100 feet of the water. This subspecies of rattlesnake is known only from the southern Guadalupe Mountains in Eddy and possibly Otero Counties. Key habitat areas include Walnut and Gunsight Canyons and Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Rock rattlesnakes usually Mottled rock occur between 3,937 and 8,530 feet in elevation in New Mexico. rattlesnake Unlikely to occur. Montane, rocky habitat State T This snake is found in a variety of habitats, including pine-oak No impact (Crotalus lepidus does not exist within the Project Area. forests, mesquite-grasslands, and rocky desert habitats. Is lepidus) primarily a mountain dweller, but also occurs in bordering lowlands in some areas. This species favors areas of boulders and rocks including talus slopes with their abundant hiding places. This species is known from Eddy County and may occur in Otero and southwest Chaves Counties. Occurs in typical Chihuahuan desert habitat with abundant limestone outcroppings between Unlikely to occur. Limestone outcroppings 3,510 and 6,693 feet in elevation. Inhabits a variety of habitats, Gray-banded and rocky desert hills do not exist within but found primarily in rocky desert hills at medium elevations. kingsnake State E the Project Area, and the project is on the No impact Habitat appears to be restricted to steep to precipitous hills and (Lampropeltis alterna) lower edge of the elevational range for mountains between approximately 3,937–5,741 feet in elevation this species. (below the juniper zone). This species could be expected to occur throughout the limestone broken rock-Lozier association in Otero, Eddy, and southwestern Chaves Counties in New Mexico.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 25 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect This species is known from two disjunct areas in the eastern portion of New Mexico: 1) in the northeast along Ute Creek in Harding and Union Counties, and 2) in the Pecos Valley in Western (arid land) May occur. This species resides in the Chaves and Eddy Counties north to Roswell. Favored habitats in ribbon snake lower Pecos River drainage. The Pecos No impact; State T New Mexico center on streams, ponds, marshes, and even some (Thamnophis proximus River would be bored at the proposed ee Section 5.1 stock tanks. Vegetation in these areas consists of riparian and diabolicus) project crossing. emergent aquatic types, including willows, cattails (Typha sp.), and bulrushes (Scirpus sp.). The species forages in and along the water and on the adjacent land. In New Mexico this snake is known only from the lower Pecos Valley area (Eddy County). The plainbelly water snake is a highly aquatic species, swimming and diving with ease, and seeking May occur. This species resides in the Plainbelly water snake prey in water. Normally confined to areas of permanent water, it No impact; lower Pecos River drainage. The Pecos (Nerodia erythrogaster State E may wander short distances inland, especially in wet weather. see Section River would be bored at the proposed transversa) The preferred habitat is ponds and streams, the latter including 5.1 project crossing. fairly large rivers. The young tend to occupy areas of shallower, more dappled water than the adults, including in inlets of small streams. Birds Occurs in southeastern New Mexico primarily in shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) or sand sagebrush grasslands. Also occurs in Lesser prairie-chicken May occur. Portions of the Project Area lie BLM shinnery oak-bluestem habitats dominated by sand bluestem See Section (Tympanuchus within BLM designated management Sensitive (Andropogon hallii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), 5.3.3 pallidicinctus) areas for this species. sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), threeawn (Aristida sp.), and blue grama. Occurs in New Mexico year-round. Breeding is restricted to a few Bald eagle areas mainly in the northern part of the state along or near lakes. Unlikely to occur in the Project Area due (Haliaeetus In migration and during winter months the species is found State E to the lack of large rivers or reservoirs, No impact leucocephalus chiefly along or near rivers and streams and in grasslands and prairie dog colonies. alascanus) associated with large prairie dog (Cynomys sp.) colonies. Typically perches in trees. Four subspecies occur throughout the United States. In New Mexico, Bell’s vireo occurs in the southern third of the state during the breeding season. The medius race is found in the Unlikely to occur. No areas of dense Bell’s vireo State T Pecos Valley north to drainages west of Roswell, and in the riparian vegetation occur within Project No impact (Vireo bellii) Black River and Rattlesnake Springs areas south of Carlsbad. Area. Bell’s vireo’s fundamental requirement is dense shrubby vegetation. Proximity to water may also be important,

SWCA Environmental Consultants 26 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Migrant throughout New Mexico. Winters along coast and farther Unlikely to occur. Potential occurrence is Arctic peregrine falcon south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, limited to migrating individuals flying over (Falco peregrinus State T including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands: No impact the Project Area; therefore, this species is tundrius) low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such not discussed in more detail. as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands. Found in New Mexico year-round. All nests in New Mexico are Peregrine falcon found on cliffs. In migration and during winter months New Unlikely to occur in the Project Area due State T No impact (Falco peregrinus) Mexico’s peregrine falcons are typically associated with water to the lack of large wetlands or cliffs. and large wetlands. Broad-billed Occurs in riparian habitat or dense mesquite. Occurs in Unlikely to occur in the Project Area due hummingbird State T Guadalupe Canyon in Hidalgo County, and rarely found in the to the lack of riparian forest and dense No impact (Cynanthus latirostris Peloncillo Mountains. mesquite. magicus) Baird’s sparrow is a winter resident in New Mexico. It has been State T found on Otero Mesa and in the Animas Valley and may occur in Unlikely to occur. Dense, extensive Baird's sparrow BLM other areas of suitable winter habitat, particularly in the southeast grasslands are not present in the No impact (Ammodramus bairdii) Sensitive portion of state. Generally prefers dense, extensive grasslands proposed Project Area. with few shrubs. Avoids heavily grazed areas. Northern goshawk BLM Strongly associated with montane forests during breeding and in Unlikely to occur in the Project Area due (Accipiter gentilis No impact Sensitive winter. Migrating populations typically follow forested ridges. to the lack of montane forests. atricapillus) Occurs year-round in New Mexico. During the breeding season it is present in grasslands, badlands, and along the ecotone between grasslands and piñon-juniper woodlands, especially in May occur in the Project Area, which is Ferruginous hawk BLM the vicinity of prairie dog towns. During the winter, ferruginous See Section characterized by open vegetation and has (Buteo regalis) Sensitive hawks are primarily associated with grasslands but may be found 5.3.4 utility poles for perches. in other habitat types such as ponderosa pine forest. Prairie dogs are important year-round in the diet of New Mexico’s ferruginous hawks. Uncommon in New Mexico, where it is found statewide during migration and as a (typically non-breeding) summer resident. Breeding recorded only at Tucumcari and at Stinking Lake in Rio Unlikely to occur due to lack of shoreline White-faced ibis BLM Arriba County. Generally seen in association with shoreline and and marsh habitats adjacent to open No impact (Plegadis chihi) Sensitive marsh habitats adjacent to open water. Nesting colonies are water within Project Area. located in shrubs and low trees or in dense standing reeds and tules near or in marshes. Forages along the water’s edge or in fields.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 27 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Present mainly during the breeding season in the northern half of the state and present year-round in the southern half. Found in Burrowing owl grasslands especially in association with prairie dog colonies, in May occur due to presence of leporids in BLM See Section (Athene cunicularia desert scrub, and in agricultural and semi-urban environments. the Project Area, which may provide Sensitive 5.3.5 hypugaea) Depends on prairie dogs, rock squirrels (Otospermophilus burrows for nesting burrowing owls. variegatus), and other fossorial mammals for the availability of burrows. The loggerhead shrike is a year-round resident in New Mexico and is found throughout the state primarily in open country Loggerhead shrike BLM May occur within Project Area due to the See Section including grasslands, improved pastures, hayfields, shrub (Lanius ludovicianus) Sensitive presence of desert scrub. 5.3.6 steppe, and desert scrub, as well as piñon-juniper woodland and woodland edges. Black tern BLM Found in New Mexico only during migration and in association Unlikely to occur in the Project Area, (Chlidonias niger No impact Sensitive with wetland areas, lakes, and ponds. which has no wetlands, lakes, or ponds. surinamensis) Northern beardless Largely a gleaner of insects, although at times flying prey is Unlikely to occur in the Project Area. tyrannulet taken. In the Southwest, the species typically occurs at lower State E Suitable low elevation mesquite riparian No Impact (Camptostoma elevations in dense stands of mesquite and associated growth, habitat is not present. imberbe) typically along stream courses. Associated with shrubby riparian habitat or riparian woodland May occur in the Project Area due to the Common ground-dove edges. Also occurs in desert scrub dominated by mesquite and See Section State E presence of sparse vegetation including (Columbina passerina) pricklypear. Feeds exclusively on the ground, in sparsely 5.3.7 desert scrub. vegetated areas. Common black-hawk Unlikely to occur in the Project Area. Not It is characteristically found in the Southwest in cottonwood and (Buteogallus State T know to occur in the Pecos River No impact other woodlands along permanent lowland streams. anthracinus) drainage. This species is associated with desert canyons, thorn-scrub and Unlikely to occur in the project area. No riparian edge habitats within the extreme southern portion of canyons or riparian edge habitats occur in Varied bunting State T New Mexico. A small breeding population has been located in the project area. No impact (Passerina versicolor) canyons of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Prefers nesting along washes or on slopes of dense shrubby vegetation. The species breeds and is variably resident in the Rio Grande valley at Elephant Butte and Caballo Lake, and it also occurs regularly at Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, all of Neotropic cormorant which are key habitat areas. The species also occurs Unlikely to occur in Project Area due to (Phalacrocrax State T No impact occasionally in the valley northward to the Bernalillo area and the absence of large water bodies. brasilianus) southward to Las Cruces, plus in the Gila Valley; it is a vagrant to southern Hidalgo County, near Alamogordo, and in the lower Pecos Valley (Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge southward).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 28 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Brown pelican (Pelecanus Occurs usually in marine habitats and feeds almost exclusively Unlikely to occur due to lack of large State E No impact occidentalis on fish. Associated with large reservoirs. reservoirs in the Project Area. carolinensis) Unlikely to occur in the Project Area, Summer resident in extreme southwestern New Mexico, where it Thick-billed kingbird which is not located in southwestern New occupies riparian canyons with cottonwoods and Arizona (Tyrannus State E Mexico. The Project Area also lacks No impact sycamores. Nests 30–65 feet high in Arizona sycamore crassirostris) riparian areas with cottonwoods and (Platanus wrightii), usually in a crotch near the tree trunk. Arizona sycamores. Associated with rocky slopes or hillsides, and Chihuahuan desert Lucifer hummingbird Unlikely to occur due to lack of rocky State T vegetation. Nest sites are selected on slopes above rocky or No impact (Calothorax lucifer) slopes, hillsides, or wooded washes. wooded washes. Mammals State T In New Mexico, this species is associated with water in a variety Spotted bat Unlikely to occur due to lack of cliffs or BLM of habitats including cliffs, piñon-juniper woodlands, and No impact (Euderma maculatum) coniferous forests. Sensitive ponderosa pine or mixed coniferous forest. Found in a variety of xeric to mesic habitats: scrub-grassland, Townsend's pale big- desert scrub, semidesert shrublands, chaparral, saxicoline brush, eared bat BLM tundra, open montane forests, spruce-fir, mixed hardwood- Unlikely to occur due to lack of caves or No impact (Corynorhinus Sensitive conifer, and oak woodlands and forests. This species is strongly cave-like habitat, rocks, and cliffs. townsendii pallescens) correlated to the availability of caves or cave-like habitat, but it also uses abandoned buildings and rock crevices on cliffs. This species is found primarily at lower elevations occurring in shortgrass plains, scrub-grassland, Chihuahuan desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, Plains and Great Basin swamp and Cave myotis bat BLM Unlikely to occur due to lack of caves riparian scrub, pine-oak woodlands, and oak savannah. Inhabits No impact (Myotis velifer) Sensitive within the Project Area. caves in the limestone region of southeastern New Mexico, and it has also roosted in barn swallow nests. It is never more than a few miles from a water source, such as canals, tanks, or creeks. This species is usually associated with high cliffs and rugged rock outcroppings, but it also roosts in buildings, under lava, Big free-tailed bat caves, and sometimes tree cavities. It is found in urban areas, Unlikely to occur due to lack of high cliffs, BLM (Nyctinomops agriculture, barren land, desert scrub, scrub-grassland, swamp rock outcrops, caves, or trees within the No impact Sensitive macrotis) and riparian scrub, juniper savannah, oak savannah, shortgrass Project Area. plains, alkali sacaton grasslands, montane grassland, montane forest, evergreen forest, and marsh habitat. A mid-elevation woodland bat that occurs in montane forest and Fringed myotis bat woodland, mountain meadow, interior chaparral, scrub- Unlikely to occur due to lack of woodland BLM (Myotis thysanodes grassland, alkali sacaton grassland, Chihuahuan desert scrub, habitat, meadows, swamps, and riparian No impact Sensitive thysanodes) swamp and riparian forests and scrub, Mohave desert scrub, forests within the Project Area. upland Sonoran desert scrub, and occasionally in tundra.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 29 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Common Name Potential for Occurrence in Project Determination Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) Area of Effect Primarily a forest species occurring in chaparral, alpine and subalpine grassland, coniferous forest, scrub-grassland, Long-legged myotis Unlikely to occur due to lack of BLM Chihuahuan desert scrub, swamp and riparian forests and scrub, bat (Myotis volans watercourses, riparian areas, swamps, No impact Sensitive saxicoline brush, oak savannah, and woodland, Mojave desert interior) and forest habitat within the Project Area. scrub, and upland Sonoran desert scrub. Also occurs along watercourses and in deserts. This species is widely distributed in the western United States, and found in many habitat types. In New Mexico, the distribution Western small-footed of this species seems to be in the ponderosa pine zone, although myotis bat BLM Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable it also occurs as low as desert and as high as the lower edges of No impact (Myotis ciliolabrum Sensitive roosting or hibernation sites. the spruce-fir zone. Primarily associated with cliffs, talus fields, melanorhinus) and buttes and steep riverbanks that provide suitable roosting sites. Occurs in riparian communities, grasslands, semi-desert shrublands, mountain brush, woodlands, and desert habitats. It Yuma myotis bat BLM also occurs in arid canyon lands and Sonoran desert scrub. The Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable (Myotis yumanensis No impact Sensitive species is associated with riparian areas and watercourses in the roosting sites. yumanensis) western United States. Roosts in caves, mines, cliffs, crevices, buildings, and swallow nests, including cliff swallows. Mostly found in forested habitats such as piñon-juniper Gray-footed chipmunk woodlands, but may also occur shrublands, and desert Unlikely to occur in the Project Area due BLM (Neotamias canipes communities. It may occur in down and dead trees, dense stands to lack of trees, dense stands of timber, No impact Sensitive canipes) of mixed timber, and on brushy hillsides, particularly in rock brushy hillsides, or rock crevices. crevices. Unlikely to occur in the Project Area, Black-tailed prairie dog Native to grasslands including short- and mixed-grass prairie, which did not harbor any prairie dog (Cynomys BLM sagebrush steppe, and desert grasslands. Also known to occur colonies at the time of the surveys. The No impact ludovicianus Sensitive in mesquite-creosote bush, grama-needlegrass, tarbush- subspecies arizonensis is also primarily arizonensis) creosote bush, and burrowgrass-cholla type habitats. (perhaps exclusively) restricted to the southwestern part of the state. Unlikely to occur in the Project Area, Guadalupe pocket Found in sycamore, cottonwood, and rabbitbrush riparian BLM which is outside the known distribution of gopher (Thomomys communities in the Guadalupe Mountains of southeastern New No impact Sensitive the species and contains no riparian bottae guadalupensis) Mexico and western Texas. vegetation. This species inhabits waterways that have a constant and fairly stable source of water with dense aquatic and emergent May occur. This species could occur along Pecos River muskrat No impact; BLM vegetation surrounded by terrestrial herbaceous vegetation. the Pecos River in Eddy County. The (Ondatra zibethicus see Section Sensitive Common muskrats prefer sloughs, marshes, oxbow lakes, Pecos River would be bored at the ripensia) 5.1 streams, levees, dikes, and small lakes and ponds. Common proposed project crossing. muskrats build lodges in or near water using marsh vegetation.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 30 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

* Federal (USFWS) status definitions: C = Candidate. Any species (taxon) for which the USFWS has sufficient information to propose that it be added to the list of endangered and threatened species, but the listing action has been precluded by other, higher priority listing activities. * State status definitions: E = Endangered. Any species that is considered by the State of New Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish for wildlife, Forestry and Resources Conservation Division for plants) as being in jeopardy of extinction or extirpation from the state. T = Threatened. Any species that, in the view of the State of New Mexico, is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range in New Mexico. Except where otherwise noted, range or habitat information for wildlife species is taken from the Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M) website (BISON-M 2016), the USFWS (2016a), the New Mexico Forestry Division (2006), Cartron (2010), and the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council (1999).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 31 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

6.2 FEDERALLY THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED SPECIES No federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species are likely to occur in the Project Area. Range, habitat associations, potential for occurrence and effects determination are discussed in Table 6.1 and no federally listed species are evaluated further in this section.

6.3 OTHER CONSERVATION SENSITIVE SPECIES Other conservation sensitive species with the potential to occur in the Project Area are discussed in detail in this section. Species that are unlikely to occur in the Project Area are discussed in Table 6.2 and are not evaluated in detail in this section.

6.3.1 SCHEER’S BEEHIVE CACTUS (CORYPHANTHA ROBUSTISPINA VAR. SCHEERI)

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION Scheer’s beehive cactus is a state endangered plant and a BLM sensitive species. The cactus is found at a limited number of locations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and possibly Mexico (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999). It occurs in Chaves and Eddy Counties in southern New Mexico and in counties of nearby western Texas (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999). It has been observed on alluvial hillsides on rocky or sandy soils in southeastern Arizona (Roller 1996). In New Mexico, the cactus occurs in desert flats, playas, and lowlands in grasslands (Allred and Ivey 2012), and occasionally on limestone or gypsum benches and bajadas (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999). Elevations for this cactus in Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico range from 3,300 to 3,600 feet (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999). In Arizona, Scheer’s beehive cactus is found at higher elevations between 2,300 and 5,000 feet (Roller 1996). Flowering occurs from May to July, and possibly as late as November (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999).

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS This cactus occurs within the Pecos River drainage (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999) and has also been observed in association with desert flats, playas, and lowlands in grasslands outside the Pecos River drainage area (Allred and Ivey 2012).

CONSERVATION THREATS The primary concern for this species stems from potential for impacts to populations that consist of relatively few long-lived individuals. Impacts may occur from trampling and grazing by domestic livestock, as well as off-road vehicles and commercial and residential development (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION Scheer’s beehive cactus could potentially occur in the Project Area. This cactus occurs within the Pecos River drainage (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999) and has also been observed in association with desert flats, playas, and lowlands in grasslands outside the Pecos River drainage area (Allred and Ivey 2012). No Scheer’s beehive cacti were identified during the

SWCA Environment Consultants 32 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

field survey, although very small, young cacti belonging to that species could have escaped detection. To limit any potential impacts to Scheer’s beehive cactus, workers would be instructed not to park off the roads or ROW in undisturbed areas.

The status of Scheer’s beehive cactus in southern New Mexico is unlikely to be affected by any management practices in the Project Area. The proposed project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

6.3.2 TEXAS HORNED LIZARD (PHRYNOSOMA CORNUTUM)

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION The Texas horned lizard is a BLM sensitive species that occurs from the south-central United States to northern Mexico; the species’ distribution encompasses most of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Mexico.

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS The Texas horned lizard inhabits arid and semiarid regions at elevations from sea level to 6,900 feet, characterized by open vegetation communities and a variety of soils ranging from sandy to rocky soils (Degenhardt et al. 1996). Open vegetation communities occupied by Texas horned lizards typically include grass, cactus, and scattered brush or scrubby trees (BISON-M 2016; Degenhardt et al. 1996; Jones and Lovich 2009). The Texas horned lizard is very cryptic and is usually found in the open, basking in the sun. Texas horned lizards are active throughout the daytime; however, most activity takes place in the morning or late afternoon. When disturbed, their escape response is frequently to nearby vegetation or they will run away to an open area, stop, and remain motionless or cryptic (Degenhardt et al. 1996; Jones and Lovich 2009).

CONSERVATION THREATS Threats to the Texas horned lizard include habitat loss from destruction and fragmentation, commercial collection, chemical spraying of non-native vegetation, and red fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) introduction (Degenhardt et al. 1996; Jones and Lovich 2009).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION The Project Area is characterized by suitable habitat for the species, although no Texas horned lizards were observed in the Project Area during the field survey. If Texas horned lizards are present in the Project Area during construction, they could avoid the disturbance by moving to adjacent habitat. The proposed project is not likely to adversely impact this species. Following best management practices on pipeline burial (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish [NMDGF] 2003) would prevent accidental Texas horned lizard mortality resulting from entrapment. The proposed project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

SWCA Environment Consultants 33 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

6.3.3 LESSER PRAIRIE-CH ICKEN (TYMPANUCHUS PALLIDICINCTUS)

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION The LPC is a medium-sized grouse that occurs in scattered populations in short-grass and mixed grass prairies, shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) grasslands, and sand sagebrush grasslands of the southern Great Plains (New Mexico Partners in Flight [NMPIF] 2016a). The LPC is listed as a BLM sensitive species. The range of the LPC has been reduced by about 92% over the past century (Crawford 1980; NMPIF 2016a). Current distribution is disjunctive, with a distinct gap between the southeast Colorado, southwest Kansas, western Oklahoma, eastern Texas panhandle population and the eastern New Mexico, western Texas population (NMPIF 2016a). The species is estimated to occupy less than 50% of its historical range in New Mexico (Bailey and Williams 2000). It has not been observed in the northeastern portion of the state (north of Interstate 40) since 1993 (Bailey and Williams 2000; Smith et al. 1998). The primary populations occur in northern Lea and southern Roosevelt Counties. Sparse and scattered populations occur in portions of northeast Chaves, Curry, and northern Roosevelt Counties, and small portions of eastern De Baca and southern Quay Counties (NMPIF 2016a). In Eddy and southern Lea Counties, the species is considered nearly extirpated, and in 2005, a single known lek was reported in this area (NMPIF 2016a). Two leks were discovered in southern Lea County in 2009. Both of these leks are currently considered inactive since no activity has been recorded since their discovery in 2009 (Southern Great Plains Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool [SGPCHAT] 2016).

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS LPCs occupy native shrublands of the southern Great Plains. In New Mexico, LPC habitat occurs in vegetation communities dominated by shinnery oak and several species of bluestem (Andropogon sp.), grama, and dropseed grasses. In ungrazed or lightly grazed areas, native tallgrass species such as sand bluestem (Andropogon hallii) may grow higher than the relatively low shinnery oak canopy (NMPIF 2016a).

In New Mexico, LPCs have been observed in areas of shinnery oak–tallgrass habitat, with patches containing the most sand bluestem in the 10-foot-diameter area around the nest, and sand bluestem clumps as nesting cover. LPCs avoid nesting in mesquite and shortgrass-dominated areas where sand bluestem is absent (Davis et al. 1979; Davis et al. 2008; Riley et al. 1992). Although tall grasses are crucial for nesting cover, shrub cover is also a crucial component of good nesting habitat in New Mexico (NMPIF 2016a). In general, nesting habitat typically consists of low shrub cover and high grass and forb cover, interspersed with patches of short vegetation. Successful nests in nearby Chaves County were located in patches in which the vegetation was roughly 65% grasses and 30% shinnery oak (NMPIF 2016a).

The LPC’s diet consists of insects, seeds, and green leafy material (Bidwell et al. 2002). Males congregate for displays on leks or gobbling grounds in open areas where grass is short. In spring, LPCs congregate at gobbling grounds or lek sites, where males gather in groups and perform mating displays for females (NMPIF 2016a). Most hens visiting the leks mate with dominant males that hold central territories of the leks. After mating, the hen selects a nest site on the ground in areas with few predators (e.g., away from water), usually within 1 mile of the lek. Clutch size is typically 11 to 14, and incubation lasts 23 to 28 days. The hen moves her brood

SWCA Environment Consultants 34 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

away from the nest within hours of hatching, into areas of early-stage plant succession, where insects are abundant (NMPIF 2016a). The brood remains with the hen for 8 to 10 weeks, then disperses. LPCs are non-migratory (Bidwell et al. 2002).

CONSERVATION THREATS The main threat to the species consists of habitat loss and fragmentation due to agricultural land conversion and oil and gas development (Fuhlendorf et al. 2002; Hunt and Best 2004; USFWS 2010b; Woodward et al. 2001). Oil drilling may play a role in the previous abandonment of a number of historically active lek sites in the Carlsbad area. Preliminary data over 2 years show that inactive lek sites are exposed to higher ambient sound levels than active sites (Hunt and Best 2002). The same study also reports a significantly higher number of operating wells within 1 mile of inactive than active lek sites (NMPIF 2016a).

Livestock grazing is the predominant land use across the species’ range in New Mexico and plays a major role in determining habitat quality (NMPIF 2016a). Landscapes in which more than 37% of native rangeland has been lost may be incapable of supporting LPCs, and populations have declined in areas with only 20% rangeland conversion (Taylor and Guthrie 1980; USFWS 1998). Grazing that results in insufficient residual grass cover for successful nesting or otherwise lowers recruitment by reducing the availability of good nesting and broodrearing habitat may cause population declines (Bidwell et al. 2002; Jamison et al. 2002; USFWS 1998). In some areas, the spread of mesquite or other drought-tolerant shrubs has altered or reduced habitats preferred by LPC (NMPIF 2016a). Improper or excessive use of herbicides in LPC habitat used to control shinnery oak and improve livestock forage may result in the loss of an important source of food and protective cover for LPCs (Bidwell et al. 2002; Giesen 1998).

A growing body of evidence suggests that LPCs actively avoid areas of human activity, noise, and proximity to vertical elements (such as trees or power poles), particularly during nesting (NMPIF 2016a; Robel et al. 2004). Predation on nests, chicks, and adult birds is by far the largest source of mortality for this species (NMPIF 2016a). The introduction of trees, power lines, or other vertical structures into prairie habitats provides hunting perches for raptors and may indirectly increase raptor predation on LPCs (Bidwell et al. 2002). Fences and power lines may also be a significant cause of direct mortality by collision (Bidwell et al. 2002). Because of their avoidance of tall structures, LPCs may also be highly vulnerable to wind power development (NMPIF 2016a).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION SWCA conducted LPC lek surveys for a portion of the proposed project traversing through a BLM management area for LPC, the IPA (BLM 2008b). Survey points were placed according to BLM protocol to provide survey coverage within the IPA for the LPC. Listening points were placed along existing roads, as feasible, and spaced at 0.5-mile intervals. In total, SWCA visited 34 listening point locations (Appendix C). SWCA biologists Joanna Franks and Kim Goering conducted LPC surveys from March 15 through 25, 2016. Survey results were recorded on data sheets provided by the BLM and are included in Appendix C.

SWCA did not observe (visual and/or auditory) any LPC individuals or leks. There are no known historical leks within proximity of the Project Area.

SWCA Environment Consultants 35 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Mitigation measures for activities in LPC management areas outlined in the RMPA include the following.

1. Timing and noise restrictions within LPC management areas would be applied to prevent disruption of mating and nesting activities. All energy exploration and development activities would be prohibited from 3:00 to 9:00 a.m. between March 1 and June 15.

2. Exceptions to these timing requirements would be considered in emergency situations such as mechanical failures. Potential drill rig loss, drill rig scheduling, or the potential loss of a lease are not emergency situations. Exceptions would not be granted after March 15, or during the March 1 to June 15 period if the BLM determines, on the basis of biological data or other relevant facts or circumstances, that the granting of an exception would disrupt LPC booming activity during the breeding season. Requests for exceptions on a non-emergency basis may also be considered, for the period of March 1 to June 15, but these exceptions would not be granted if the BLM determines that there is LPC habitat, LPC sightings, historical leks, and or active leks within 1.5 miles of the proposed location, or any combination of the above-mentioned criteria.

3. If new LPC leks are discovered in the future within the LPC management area, a 1.5-mile radius around the lek would be considered occupied habitat and the above prescriptions would apply to proposed actions in and around that habitat.

Impacts to LPCs potentially present in the general area of the proposed project are possible in the form of construction-related noise disturbance, but such impacts would only be temporary. Any LPCs present locally during construction activities would likely move to adjacent suitable habitat. The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the species or its habitat.

6.3.4 FERRUGINOUS HAWK (BUTEO REGALIS)

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION The ferruginous hawk is a BLM sensitive species. The ferruginous hawk’s breeding distribution is centered on the Great Basin and Great Plains from southwestern Canada south to Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and northwestern Texas. The species is migratory except in the southernmost part of its range, and breeding and wintering distributions overlap. In New Mexico, the species is known to breed south to a latitude of 33° 20′ N (Cartron et al. 2010). In the southern tier of New Mexico, the species is primarily a winter resident, although historical nesting records exist. Throughout New Mexico, ferruginous hawks are primarily associated with grasslands and badlands, especially in the vicinity of prairie dog (Cynomys sp.) colonies. The diet of ferruginous hawks consists primarily of mammals, often dominated in terms of biomass by prairie dogs. Ferruginous hawks nest on cliffs and in trees (Cartron et al. 2010).

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS The preferred habitat of the ferruginous hawk is arid and semiarid grasslands of North America. These hawks avoid high elevations and are found in areas of large trees, cliffs, plateaus, foothills, shallow canyons, or riparian habitats. During the breeding season these hawks dwell in

SWCA Environment Consultants 36 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico grassland, sagebrush, and other desert shrub areas. Cultivated areas are avoided, but are sometimes inhabited through the winter.

CONSERVATION THREATS Declines are mostly due to loss of quality habitat. Although flexible in choosing a nest site and exhibiting a high reproductive potential, this bird’s restriction to natural grasslands on the breeding grounds and specialized predation on mammals persecuted on rangelands may make conservation a continuous concern.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION The Project Area represents marginal habitat at best for the ferruginous hawk. In particular, nesting is unlikely due to the lack of trees. Any ferruginous hawks present in the general area of the proposed project would not find adequate concentration of preferred mammalian prey, such as prairie dogs. Thus, any impacts to ferruginous hawks would likely be in the form of noise disturbance only. Any ferruginous hawk present in or near the Project Area would simply relocate to a nearby area with similar habitat. If possible, vegetation removal would be scheduled outside the migratory bird breeding season (March 1–August 31). Any vegetation removal during the bird breeding season would be preceded by pre-removal nesting surveys to identify any occupied nests and establish avoidance buffers to prevent impacts to species protected under the MBTA. No long-term impacts to the ferruginous hawk or its habitat are anticipated from the proposed project. The proposed project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

6.3.5 BURROWING OWL (ATHENE CUNICULARIA)

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION The burrowing owl is listed as endangered in Canada and threatened in Mexico. In the United States, it is protected under the MBTA and it is listed by the USFWS (2002) as a national bird of conservation concern. It is also a BLM sensitive species. Populations of burrowing owls are declining across much of North America, particularly in the north.

The burrowing owl is a ground-dwelling, burrowing raptor distributed throughout the New World from southern Canada, south to Chile, and on the West Indies islands (Desmond 2010). In North America the species is partially migratory, with breeding and non-breeding ranges overlapping in the southwestern United States and Mexico. In New Mexico, burrowing owl breeding populations are distributed throughout the entire state. Breeding pairs vacate their breeding grounds in the northern part of the state to migrate south, whereas in the central tier of the state overwintering is irregular. In the south, some burrowing owls overwinter on their breeding grounds, their numbers fluctuating annually.

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS Burrowing owls are primarily associated with grasslands—the species is thought to have originated on the Great Plains, but other open habitats are used by the owl in New Mexico as elsewhere: desert scrub, savannahs, arroyos, agricultural lands, and urban and disturbed areas.

SWCA Environment Consultants 37 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Burrowing owls occupy burrows excavated by other mammals, which in New Mexico typically consist of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), Gunnison’s prairie dogs (C. gunnisoni), and rock squirrels (Otospermophilus variegatus). The arrival time on breeding grounds in New Mexico is typically in mid to late March (Desmond 2010).

CONSERVATION THREATS Primary threats to the species consist chiefly of prairie grassland habitat loss and fragmentation, human-caused mortality on wintering grounds and during migration, and the loss of colonial sciurids such as prairie dogs.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION One suitable nesting burrows were observed in the Project Area. No prairie dog colonies were identified within the Project Area. If construction activities are planned during the nesting season (March 1–August 31), SWCA would conduct pre-construction surveys to determine nesting status and establish a 200-meter avoidance zone around any active burrow complex. Oxy would provide a biological monitor during construction near occupied burrows identified during pre- construction surveys. Workers would be informed of sensitive areas and would also be advised to avoid parking in the vicinity of potentially suitable nesting burrows. The proposed project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Overall, no long-term impacts are anticipated to the burrowing owl or its habitat.

6.3.6 LOGGERH EAD SH RIKE (LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS)

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION The loggerhead shrike is designated as a BLM sensitive species. The species is a year-round resident of the southern half of the United States from California to the Carolinas, south of the Pacific slope and into the interior highlands of Mexico (NMPIF 2016b). Summer breeding populations extend into the northern United States, in the Midwest, and into south-central Canada (NMPIF 2016b). Loggerhead shrikes are also present in Oregon and Washington and into the Great Lakes region (Yosef 1996).

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS The loggerhead shrike is relatively common in lowland habitats of New Mexico, but general species requirements include widely spaced shrubs and low trees, interspersed with grass, forbs, and bare ground (NMPIF 2016b). In New Mexico, loggerhead shrikes are usually associated with open country that contains short vegetation. Breeding territories are often characterized by the presence of isolated trees and large shrubs, and dense, thorny shrubs are preferred for nesting. In desert areas, tall yucca stems are used as hunting perches. Presence of shrubs is critical to loggerhead shrike habitat where the species has access to thorns or barbed-wire in which to impale its prey (NMPIF 2016b).

CONSERVATION THREATS The loggerhead shrike long-term decline is not understood. The lack of knowledge on this species’ decline has left it vulnerable and in need of careful monitoring (NMPIF 2016b).

SWCA Environment Consultants 38 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION Loggerhead shrikes were observed during the the Project Area surveys, and suitable thorny shrub habitat is present. If possible, vegetation removal would be scheduled outside the migratory breeding bird season (March 1–August 31). If such timing is not feasible, vegetation removal would be preceded by nest surveys to identify the possibility of loggerhead shrikes nesting in the Project Area and establish avoidance buffers around any occupied nests. Disturbance of loggerhead shrikes or their habitat would be temporary. The proposed project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

6.3.7 COMMON GROUND-DOVE (COLUMBINA PASSERINA)

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION The common ground-dove is a New Mexico State endangered bird. The species occurs from southeastern California east to southern Texas and the southeastern United States, southward into Latin America. It occurs year-round in New Mexico in the southernmost part of the state, including at San Simon Cienega (Hidalgo County) and sparingly in the lowermost Rio Grande and Pecos River valleys. It has also occurred irregularly northward to the lower Gila Valley and the Socorro area, and as a straggler elsewhere. Recently, this species has declined from being a sparse resident of the southern border region to a population consisting of a few birds in Hidalgo County, plus stragglers elsewhere in the state (NMDGF 1991).

HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS The species is typically found in agricultural and undeveloped, desert scrub and xeroriparian areas at elevations below 5,410 feet. Much of its time is spent walking on the ground, gleaning seeds and other plant materials that constitute the bulk of the species’ diet. When not foraging, common ground-doves generally perch quietly and inconspicuously in shrubs or low in trees, although in the breeding season males call for extended periods of time. The nest is typically in a shrub or low tree, often within 6 feet of the ground.

CONSERVATION THREATS Riparian areas have been reduced in New Mexico, thereby limiting the species’ preferred breeding grounds (NMPIF 2016c).

EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND EFFECTS DETERMINATION Although the common ground-dove is now mainly restricted to Hidalgo County, it is possible for it to occur in the Project Area near the Pecos River. Any impact to common ground-doves present in the Project Area would consist of temporary noise disturbance. Vegetation removal activities should occur outside the breeding season (March 1–August 31). If this is not feasible, pre-removal nest surveys would be conducted to identify the possibility of common ground- doves nesting in the Project Area. The proposed project may impact individuals or habitat, but likely would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

SWCA Environment Consultants 39 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

6.4 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT The MBTA provides federal protection to all migratory birds, as well as their nests and eggs. The MBTA implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and other countries for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, unless permitted by regulations, it is unlawful to 1) pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill; 2) attempt to take, capture, or kill; and 3) possess, offer to sell, barter, purchase, deliver, or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried, or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product, manufactured or not. USFWS regulations broadly define “take” under the MBTA to mean “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” Under the MBTA, “take” does not include habitat loss or alteration

During SWCA’s survey, 44 bird species were observed or heard (see Table 4.3), and many nests were encountered, including one suitable burrowing owl burrow. During the breeding season, birds may nest on the ground or in shrubs documented in the Project Area, such as mesquite and fourwing saltbush. Potential impacts to migratory birds would vary depending on whether construction activities occur within the migratory bird breeding season (March 1–August 31). If possible, vegetation removal would be scheduled outside the migratory breeding bird season. Any vegetation removal during the breeding bird season would be preceded by pre-removal nesting surveys to identify any occupied nests and establish avoidance buffers to prevent impacts to species protected under the MBTA.

6.5 BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the MBTA. In New Mexico, the bald eagle is found typically in association with water and nests only at a few undisclosed locations along lakes or streams in the northern and western portions of the state (Stahlecker and Walker 2010). The golden eagle nests primarily on rock ledges or cliffs, less often in large trees at elevations ranging from 4,000 to 10,000 feet, and is typically found in mountainous regions of open country, prairies, arctic and alpine tundra, open wooded areas, and barren areas. Both bald and golden eagles are carnivores. In New Mexico, bald eagles prey on fish but also on mammals, especially prairie dogs. Golden eagles feed mainly on small mammals, as well as invertebrates, carrion, and other wildlife (BISON-M 2016).

Bald eagles are unlikely to occur in the Project Area due to the lack of wooded riparian habitat and preferred prey. Golden eagles may occur in the Project Area, especially outside the breeding season when they can perch on utility poles far from cliffs and other rugged terrain. However, their presence would likely be of short duration and nesting within or adjacent to the Project Area would be unlikely. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause take of individual bald or golden eagles, their nests, or eggs.

SWCA Environment Consultants 40 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

7 CONCLUSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 FEDERALLY LISTED AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Among federal threatened, endangered, and proposed species, none are expected to occur in the Project Area. Twelve other special status species may also occur or are likely to occur in the Project Area. They include five species collectively referred to as Pecos River Species (bigscale logperch, western river cooter, western [arid land] ribbon snake, plainbelly water snake, and Pecos River muskrat), as well as Scheer’s beehive cactus, Texas horned lizard, LPC, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and common ground-dove. Potential impacts of the proposed project to most of these species are expected to be minimal and temporary.

Best management practices on pipeline burial are available from the NMDGF (2003) Habitat Handbook trenching guidelines. These guidelines have been developed to prevent wildlife mortalities from accidental entrapment. Reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals are particularly vulnerable to that risk.

7.2 MBTA AND BGEPA In general, no major or long-term effects on migratory birds are anticipated from the implementation of the proposed project. If vegetation clearing occurs during the bird breeding season (March 1–August 31), pre-clearing nesting bird surveys would be conducted to ensure avoidance of any occupied nests; however, displacement is possible on a local scale. Plant communities present in the Project Area are widespread elsewhere and many birds occurring locally would likely move into adjacent habitats in response to temporary habitat loss.

Activities in the survey area are not expected to impact bald and golden eagles. No bald eagles were observed during the field survey, and golden eagles that may occur in the survey area likely would not be disturbed.

7.3 WATERS OF THE U.S. AND SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES No indicators of wetlands, such as hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology, or other special aquatic sites were identified in the Project Area. SWCA identified thirty-five ephemeral streams and one perennial stream (Pecos River) within the Project Area. In SWCA’s professional opinion, the ephemeral streams identified during field surveys may be considered waters of the U.S.; however, this report is not a legal delineation of the boundaries of “waters of the U.S.” or a determination of their jurisdictional status. Only the USACE and/or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have final and/or legal authority in determining the presence of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and the extent of their boundaries.

7.4 NOXIOUS WEEDS A small infestation of an NMDA Class B noxious weed, African rue, was observed within the Project Area. Treatment to prevent further proliferation is recommended.

SWCA Environment Consultants 41 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

This page left intentionally blank

SWCA Environment Consultants 42 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

8 LITERATURE CITED

Allred, K.W., and R.D. Ivey. 2012. Flora Neomexicana III: An Illustrated Identification Manual. Published by the author at http://lulu.com.

Bailey, J.A., and S.O. Williams. 2000. Status of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken in New Mexico, 1999. Prairie Naturalist 32:157–168.

Bidwell, T., S. Fuhlendorf, B. Gillen, S. Harmon, R. Horton, R. Manes, R. Rodgers, S. Sherrod, and D. Wolfe. 2002. Ecology and Management of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service E-970. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University.

Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M). 2016. BISON-M home page. Available at: http://www.bison-m.org. Accessed May 2016.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. Manual 6840:Special Status Species Management Manual. May 01, 2016.

———. 2008a. Manual 6840:Special Status Species Management Manual. December 12, 2008.

———. 2008b. Special Status Species Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. Roswell, New Mexico: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pecos District Office.

Cartron, J-L.E. (ed.). 2010. Raptors of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Cartron, J.-L.E., J.M. Ramakka, and H.R. Schwarz. 2010. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). In Raptors of New Mexico, edited by J.-L. E. Cartron, pp. 337–357. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Crawford, J.A. 1980. Status, problems and research needs of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken. In Proceedings of the Prairie Grouse Symposium, edited by P.A. Vohs, Jr. and F.L. Knopf, pp. 1–7. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University.

Davis, C.A., T.Z. Riley, R.A. Smith, H.R. Suminski, and M.J. Wisdom. 1979. Habitat Evaluation of Lesser Prairie Chickens in Eastern Chaves County, New Mexico. Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

Davis, D.M., R.E. Horton, E.A. Odell, R.D. Rogers, and H.A. Whitlaw. 2008. Lesser Prairie- Chicken Conservation Initiative. Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group. Unpublished report. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

SWCA Environment Consultants 43 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Desmond, M.J. 2010. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). In Raptors of New Mexico, edited by J.-L.E Cartron, pp. 579–595. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Fuhlendorf, S.D., A.J.W. Woodward, D.M. Leslie Jr., and J.S. Shackford. 2002. Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on Lesser Prairie-Chicken populations of the U.S. Southern Great Plains. Landscape Ecology 17:617–628.

Giesen, K.M. 1998. Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). In The Birds of North America, No. 364, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The Birds of North America, Inc.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, M.M. McGraw, G.Z. Jacobi, C.M. Canavan, T.S. Schrader, D. Mercer, R. Hill, and B.C. Moran. 2006. Ecoregions of New Mexico (two-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Scale 1:1,400,000.

Hunt, J.L., and T.L. Best. 2002. Investigation into the Decline of Populations of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad Field Office. Annual Report.

———. 2004. Investigation into the Decline of Populations of the Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico. Final Report, Cooperative Agreement GDA010007. Carlsbad, New Mexico: Bureau of Land Management.

Jamison, B.E., J.A. Dechant, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldabe, and B.R. Euliss. 2002. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Lesser Prairie-Chicken. Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Available at: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70159587. Accessed June 2016.

Jones, L.C., and R.E. Lovich. 2009. Lizards of the American Southwest. Tucson: Rio Nuevo Publishers.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016a. The PLANTS Database. Available at: http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed May 2016.

———. 2016b. Web Soil Survey of Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed May 2016.

New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA). 2009. New Mexico Noxious Weed List Update. New Mexico State University. Available at: http://www.nmda.nmsu.edu/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/weed_memo_list.pdf. Accessed May 2016.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). 1991. Checklist of the Extinct, Extirpated, and Vanishing Wildlife of New Mexico. March 11, 1991. Santa Fe: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Endangered Species Program.

SWCA Environment Consultants 44 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

———. 2003. NMDGF Habitat Handbook, Trenching Guidelines. Available at: http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/conservation/habitat-handbook/project- guidelines/Trenching-Project-Guidelines.pdf. Accessed June 2016.

New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD). 2016. New Mexico state endangered plant species (19.21.2.8 NMAC). Available at: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/SFD/ForestMgt/documents/NMENDANGEREDPLANTL ist.pdf. Accessed May 2016.

New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF). 2016a. Lesser Prairie Chicken Species Account. Available at: http://nmpartnersinflight.org/lesserprairiechicken.html. Accessed May 2016.

———. 2016b. Loggerhead Shrike Species Account. Available at: http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/loggerheadshrike.html. Accessed June 2016.

———. 2016c. Common Ground-dove Species Account. Available at: http://nmpartnersinflight.org/commongrounddove.html. Accessed June 2016.

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 1999. New Mexico Rare Plants Website (20 April 2015). Available at: http://nmrareplants.unm.edu. Accessed May 2016.

Riley, T.Z., C.A. Davis, M. Ortiz, and M.J. Wisdom. 1992. Vegetative characteristics of successful and unsuccessful nests of lesser prairie-chickens. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:381–385.

Robel, R.J., J.A. Harrington, C.A. Hagen, J.C. Pitman, and R.R. Reker. 2004. Effect of energy development and human activity on the use of sand sagebrush habitat by lesser prairie- chickens in southwest Kansas. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69:251–266.

Roller, P.S. 1996. Distribution, Growth, and Reproduction of Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri Kuntz var. robustispina Schott). M.S. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Sivinski, R.C. 2012. Cirsium wrightii Wright’s Marsh Thistle: A 2012 Population Assessment. Prepared by New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department – Forestry Division.

Smith, H., K. Johnson, and L. DeLay. 1998. Survey of the Lesser Prairie Chicken on Bureau of Land Management Lands- Carlsbad Resource Area, NM. Carlsbad, New Mexico: Bureau of Land Management.

Stahlecker, D.W., and H.A. Walker. 2010. Bald eagle. In Raptors of New Mexico, edited by J.-L. E. Cartron, pp. 131–149. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

SWCA Environment Consultants 45 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Taylor, M.A., and F.S. Guthrie. 1980. Status, Ecology, and Management of the Lesser-prairie Chicken. General Technical Report RM-77. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.

———. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center.

———. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/EL TR-08-12. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for a petition to list the lesser prairie chicken as threatened and designate critical habitat. Federal Register 63:31400–31406.

———. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern. Administrative Report. Arlington, Virginia: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

———. 2010a. Pecos Bluntnose Shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis), 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Albuquerque: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.

———. 2010b. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Lesser Prairie-Chicken. Tulsa, Oklahoma: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services.

———. 2016a. IPaC Trust Resources Report, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico. Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed May 2016.

———. 2016b. U.S. FWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed May 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Consultations and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf. Accessed May 2016.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed May 2016.

SWCA Environment Consultants 46 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. New Mexico Climate Summaries. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1475, Accessed May 2016.

Woodward, A.J., S.D. Fuhlendorf, D.M. Leslie, and J. Shackford. 2001. Influence of landscape composition and change on lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) populations. American Midland Naturalist 145:261–274.

Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill, No. 231. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: American Ornithologists’ Union.

Young, K., and Q. Young. 2010. Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis). In Raptors of New Mexico, edited by J.-L.E Cartron, pp. 429–443. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Zymonas, N.D., and D.L. Propst. 2007. Ecology of Blue Sucker and Gray Redhorse in the Lower Pecos River, New Mexico 2000-2006. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Conservation Services Division, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

SWCA Environment Consultants 47 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

APPENDIX A PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS

SWCA Environment Consultants 48 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

This page left intentionally blank

SWCA Environment Consultants 49 October 2016 Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.1. View of typical habitat in the Project Area showing small sand dunes, facing north.

Figure A.2. View of typical habitat in the Project Area showing desert mesquite scrub habitat, facing southeast.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 50 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.3. View of box turtle in sand dunes in the Project Area.

Figure A.4. View of active cactus wren nest in Project Area, facing northwest.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.5. View of representative drainage in Project Area, facing west.

Figure A.6. View of active unknown passerine nest in Project Area with five eggs.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 52 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.7. View of coachwhip in Project Area.

Figure A.8. View of typical habitat in the Project Area showing mesquite habitat with grass understory, facing east.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 53 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.9. View of representative drainage in Project Area, facing upstream.

Figure A.10. View of representative drainage in Project Area, facing upstream.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 54 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.11. View of typical habitat in the Project Area showing desert scrub, facing northeast.

Figure A.12. View of active raptor nest behind foliage in Project Area, facing west.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 55 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.13. View of typical disturbed farmland habitat, facing south.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 56 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure A.14. View of Pecos River that crosses through the Project Area, facing northeast.

Figure A.15. View of cactus wren nest in mesquite tree.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 57 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 58 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

APPENDIX B PROJECT AREA SOILS

SWCA Environmental Consultants 59 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

This page left intentionally blank

SWCA Environmental Consultants 60 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

EDDY AND LEA COUNTY SOILS

AA – ANTHONY SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES Anthony soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .24. It is irrigated land capability subclass 2s. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7s. This soil is farmland of statewide importance. This component is not a hydric soil.

AH – ANTHONY SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES Anthony soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .24. It is irrigated land capability subclass 2s. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7s. This soil is farmland of statewide importance. This component is not a hydric soil.

BA – BERINO LOAMY FINE SAND, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES Berino soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, and shrink swell potential is moderate. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is irrigated land capability subclass 3e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

BB- BERINO COMPLEX, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED Berino soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, and shrink swell potential is moderate. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is irrigated land capability subclass 3e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil

SWCA Environmental Consultants 61 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

BE – BERINO-CACIQUE LOAMY FINE SANDS ASSOCIATION Berino soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, and shrink swell potential is moderate. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is irrigated land capability subclass 3e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

BH - BERINO-CACIQUE ASSOCIATION, HUMMOCKY Berino soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, and shrink swell potential is moderate. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is irrigated land capability subclass 3e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

HK – HARKEY VERY FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES

Kermit soils make up 50 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is negligible. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is excessively drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is very rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

KD – KERMIT-PALOMAS FINE SANDS, 0 TO 12 PERCENT SLOPES Kermit soils make up 50 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is negligible. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is excessively drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is very rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

KM – KERMIT-BERINO FINE SANDS, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES Kermit soils make up 50 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is negligible. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is excessively drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is very rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 62 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

KR – KARRO LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES Kermit soils make up 50 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is negligible. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is excessively drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is very rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

LA – LARGO LOAM, 1 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES Largo soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately slow. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is high, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .32. It is irrigated land capability subclass 3e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

PA – PAJARITO LOAMY FINE SAND, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED Pajarito soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very low. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is moderate, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .24. It is irrigated land capability subclass 2e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

PD – PAJARITO-DUNE LAND COMPLEX, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES The Tonuco component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 3 percent. This component is on ridges, plains, and uplands. The parent material consists of eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock. Depth to a root restrictive layer, petrocalcic, is 6 to 20 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is very high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded or ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 0%. The non-irrigated land capability classification is 7e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

PT – PYOTE LOAMY FINE SAND Pyote soils make up 85 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is negligible. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual

SWCA Environmental Consultants 63 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 5 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is irrigated land capability subclass 6e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7s. This soil is farmland of statewide importance. This component is not a hydric soil.

PU – PYOTE AND MALJAMAR FINE SANDS

Pyote soils make up 85 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is negligible. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 5 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is irrigated land capability subclass 6e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7s. This soil is farmland of statewide importance. This component is not a hydric soil.

PY – PYOTE SOILS AND DUNE LAND Pyote soils make up 85 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is negligible. The depth to a restrictive feature is greater than 60 inches. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 5 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is irrigated land capability subclass 6e. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7s. This soil is farmland of statewide importance. This component is not a hydric soil.

RO – ROCK LAND

SA – SIMONA SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES Simona soils make up 15 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 7 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .15. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 64 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SE – SIMONA FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES Simona soils make up 15 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 7 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .15. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

SG – SIMONA GRAVELLY FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES Simona soils make up 15 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 7 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .15. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

SM – SIMONA-BIPPUS COMPLEX, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES Simona soils make up 15 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 7 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .15. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

SR – SIMONA-UPTON ASSOCIATION Simona soils make up 15 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 7 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 15 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .15. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

TC – TONUCO LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED Tonuco soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 6 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is excessively drained. The slowest

SWCA Environmental Consultants 65 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is very rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

TF – TONUCO LOAMY FINE SAND Tonuco soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is very high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 6 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is excessively drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is very rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .17. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7e. This component is not a hydric soil.

UG – UPTON GRAVELLY LOAM, 0 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES Upton soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 7 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 75 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .15. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7s. This component is not a hydric soil.

UT – UPTON SOILS, 1 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES Upton soils make up 100 percent of the map unit. The runoff class is high. The depth to a restrictive feature is 7 to 20 inches to a petrocalcic. This soil is well drained. The slowest soil permeability within a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is very low, and shrink swell potential is low. Annual flooding is none, and annual ponding is none. The minimum depth to a water table is greater than 6 feet. The maximum calcium carbonate equivalent within a depth of 40 inches is 75 percent. The assigned Kw erodibility factor is .15. It is nonirrigated land capability subclass 7s. This component is not a hydric soil.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 66 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

APPENDIX C LPC MAP AND SURVEY POINTS

SWCA Environmental Consultants 67 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure C.1. LPC biological survey points (map 1 of 6).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 68 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure C.2. LPC biological survey points (map 2 of 6).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 69 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure C.3. LPC biological survey points (map 3 of 6).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 70 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure C.4. LPC biological survey points (map 4 of 6).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 71 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure C.5. LPC biological survey points (map 5 of 6).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 72 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure C.6. LPC biological survey points (map 6 of 6).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 73 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 74 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 75 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 76 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 77 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 78 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 79 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 80 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 81 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 82 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 83 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 84 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 85 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

SWCA Environmental Consultants 86 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

APPENDIX D PROJECT AREA MAPS OF BIOLOGICAL FINDINGS

SWCA Environmental Consultants 87 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.1. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 1 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 88 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.2. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 2 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 89 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.3. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 3 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 90 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.4. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 4 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 91 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.5. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 5 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 92 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.6. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 6 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 93 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.7. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 7of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 94 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.8. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 8 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 95 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.9. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 9 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 96 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.10 Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 10 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 97 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.11. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 11 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 98 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.12. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 12 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 99 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.13. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 13 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 100 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.14. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 14 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 101 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.15. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 15 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 102 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.16. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 16 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 103 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.17. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 17 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 104 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.18. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 18 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 105 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.19. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 19 of 20)

SWCA Environmental Consultants 106 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure D.20. Special status species and nests encountered during biological surveys (map 20 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 107 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

APPENDIX E MAPS OF WATERWAYS IN PROJECT AREA

SWCA Environmental Consultants 108 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.1. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 1 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 109 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.2. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 2 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 110 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.3. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 3 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 111 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.4. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 4 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 112 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.5. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 5 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 113 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.6. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 6 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 114 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.7. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 7 of 20).

7.8

SWCA Environmental Consultants 115 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.8. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 8 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 116 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.9. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 9 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 117 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.10. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 10 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 118 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.11. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 11 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 119 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.12. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 12 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 120 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.13. Mapped drainages during biological surveys

(map 13 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 121 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.14. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 14 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 122 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.15. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 15 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 123 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.16. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 16 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 124 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.17. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 17 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 125 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.18. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 18 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 126 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.19. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 19 of 20).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 127 October 2016

Biological Evaluation for the Proposed SENM Gathering System, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico

Figure E.20. Mapped drainages during biological surveys (map 20 of 20)

SWCA Environmental Consultants 128 October 2016