United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130

IN REPLY REFER TO: 08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001

June 15, 2020 Sent by email only

Bill Dunkelberger, Forest Supervisor Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest U.S. Forest Service 1200 Franklin Way Sparks, Nevada 89431

Subject: Reinitiation of formal Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for Effects to Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly for the Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan – Phase 1, Clark County, Nevada

Dear Mr. Dunkelberger:

This transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) response to your letter received April 22, 2020, reinitiating formal consultation for the Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan – Phase 1. This Biological Opinion (BO) addresses potential effects to the federally endangered Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Icaricia (Plebejus) shasta charlestonensis) and its designated critical habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and 50 CFR § 402 of our interagency regulations governing section 7 of the Act.

This biological opinion is based on information provided in your letter; the biological assessment (Westover 2019); the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS, FEIS, U.S. Forest Service 2018 and 2019 respectively); communication between the Service and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service); interagency section 7 consultation regulations in 50 CFR Part 402; scientific publications, articles, and reports; and our files. A complete project file of this consultation is available in the Service’s Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office in Las Vegas.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 2

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

CONSULTATION HISTORY The following chronology summarizes the consultation process for this biological opinion for the Mount Charleston blue butterfly (MCBB). A complete record of the consultation history is available in our consultation decision file.

On July 31, 2019, we received the request for formal consultation and the biological assessment (BA, Westover 2019) from the Forest Service, and after review of the documents, we initiated consultation beginning on this date.

August 28, 2019, the Service and Forest Service representative met to clarify Service questions and comments regarding the proposed action.

Between July 31, 2019, and October 10, 2019, the Service and Forest Service communicated through emails to clarify the proposed action and its potential effects to MCBB.

On November 27, 2019, the Service submitted the draft BO to the Forest Service for review. We received comments from the Forest Service on December 6, 2019.

On December 13, 2019, the Service issued the final BO to the Forest Service.

On April 20, 2020, the Service sent the Forest Service a letter requesting reinitiation of formal consultation for the Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan – Phase 1 in response to new information indicating that the proposed action may affect the MCBB in a manner or to an extent not considered in the biological opinion.

On April 22, 2020, the Forest Service sent the Service a letter agreeing to reinitiate formal consultation for the Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan – Phase 1 in response to new information indicating that the proposed action may affect the MCBB in a manner or to an extent not considered in the biological opinion.

On May 26, 2020, the Service submitted the draft BO to the Forest Service for review. We received comments from the Forest Service on June 4, 2020.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Definition of the Action Area The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the Act define the “action area” as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action, including interrelated and interdependent actions, and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR § 402.02). Subsequent analyses of the environmental baseline, effects of the action, cumulative effects, and levels of incidental take are based upon the action area as determined by the Service. Regulations implementing the Act define the environmental baseline as the past and present effects of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area (50 CFR § 402.02). Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated effects of all

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 3

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have undergone section 7 consultation, and the effects of state and private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress.

The action area for this consultation occurs in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA) of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Clark County, Nevada and is defined by the Lee Canyon Ski Area Special Use Permit Boundary area (PBA) and a 50-meter buffer from the boundary (Figure 1). The action area has been referred to as the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort (LVSSR) in the Service’s final listing and critical habitat designation for the MCBB (Service 2013, 2015). The action area is within the Mount Charleston blue butterfly Lee Canyon Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) 2.

Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to authorize Lee Canyon ski area (Lee Canyon) to, under a special use permit, as defined in the BA, DEIS and FEIS (Westover 2019, U.S. Forest Service 2018, 2019): (1) undertake the construction of new infrastructure (Figures 2, 4-7), aspects of which are described in the LCSA Master Development Plan – Phase 1 (MDP); (2) to continue maintenance and operations of the existing Lee Canyon Ski Area (LCSA) and associated infrastructure (Figure 3), and (3) subsequently maintain and operate the new infrastructure (Figures 2, 4-7). Maintenance and operations activities at the LCSA would be ongoing and with no planned end date. The implementation and construction associated with the MDP Phase 1 is expected to occur over a 10-year period (U.S. Forest Service 2019).

The Forest Service is only requesting consultation on Phase 1 of the LCSA MDP because Lee Canyon is not currently pursuing anything beyond Phase 1 of its development. The Forest Service has further stated that the MDP is conceptual in nature, and these types of planning documents do not receive substantive review until more detailed plans are developed for implementation, as they have been for Phase 1 in the FEIS (U.S. Forest Service 2019, p.1):

Under the terms of the Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, development and operation of ski areas on National Forest System (NFS) lands is guided by MDPs, which describe existing conditions, identify physical, environmental, and socio-economic opportunities and constraints, establish the permittee’s conceptual vision for the ski area, and outline near- to-long-term plans for achieving that vision. As a condition of permit issuance, the Forest Service must review and accept, modify, or deny a ski area’s MDP. MDPs are intended to be dynamic documents, amended or revised periodically to reflect changes in operational opportunities and constraints, recreation-market demands, or agency management requirements.

The Forest Service does not request consultation on these kinds of planning documents because of their conceptual and dynamic nature and the uncertainty that elements within them will ever be implemented. The Forest Service and Lee Canyon have indicated that there is no current intention to proceed to Phase 2 and that this phase would depend on the future finances of Lee Canyon, as well as the future review of demand for recreational opportunities. Any future development would not be considered for at least 10 years, at which time there could be many potential changes for the project and the MCBB. The Forest Service and Lee Canyon will want to evaluate many aspects of Phase 1 before considering Phase 2, including the effects of Phase 1

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 4

Figure 1. A map of the Lee Canyon Ski Area, which is located in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Clark County, Nevada.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 5

on MCBB. Phase 1 can operate without any future development of Phase 2, and Phase 2 is not an expected part of Phase 1 development. It is a stand-alone future project that may or may not occur. Should LCSA pursue a Phase 2 in the future, its scope and micro-sited footprint could be significantly different than its current iteration given the considerable change that can occur in a decade to operational needs of LCSA, as well as the information known about the MCBB.

The existing LCSA infrastructure that would be included in ongoing maintenance and operations are the following:

• Chair 1, Chair 2, and Chair 3 (lifts); • Roads – roads at the base area, road up Keno, road up The Strip, and road to the snowmaking pond; • Ski runs – Rabbit Peak, Blackjack, Keno Upper, Keno, Slot Alley, Grandma’s, Grandpa’s, Snake, The Strip, The Line, Bimbo, and Flying Home; • Snowmaking along Keno off of Chair 1, The Strip off of Chair 2, The Line off of Chair 2, and Rabbit Peak off of Chair 3; • Structures in the base area; • Trail connecting the base area to the Bristlecone Trail; • Parking area; • And disc golf.

The new infrastructure, defined as elements in the BA, that Lee Canyon proposes to construct and then include in ongoing maintenance and operations are the following:

• Lift 4: A new carpet lift along the skier’s left edge of the Rabbit Peak run; • Chair 5 pod: A new fixed-grip quad chairlift on the slope east of the existing beginner area, with three new novice-level ski runs and a conveyor lift (Lift 6) from the bottom of Chair 3 to the bottom of Chair 5; • Chair 8 pod: A new fixed-grip quad chairlift accessing several new higher-elevation novice-to intermediate ski runs southwest of Chair 2; • Glading (i.e., selective tree removal to open dense forest patches) between Chairs 1 and 5, above the snow-making pond, and between Chairs 2 and 8; • Snowmaking – snowmaking lines near Chair 5 and Chair 8, and a pump house; • Roads – Chair 8 upper and lower access, Chair 5 access; • Gladed areas north of Bimbo; • Mountain coaster; • Hiking trail; • Mountain bike trail system; • Zip line; • Equipment rental/food and beverage building at the mid-mountain site; • First aid/ski patrol building near the bottom of the new Lift 4; • Vault toilet facility at the lower parking lot; • Parking lot below the beginner area; • Gate house on the access road; • And culinary water tank near the snowmaking reservoir.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 6

Development and maintenance of the proposed infrastructure would require one or more types of actions categorized as glading, clearing, grading, and excavations. Glading is selective tree removal to open dense forest patches. Clearing is the removal of all trees and shrubs using tracked or wheeled equipment. Grading is the recontouring and smoothing of the soil surface using caterpillars or other heavy equipment. Excavation is subsurface soil work by hand or using excavators or other heavy equipment, generally to construct foundations. Staging of material and equipment will be necessary for construction, and maintenance and operations of infrastructure.

The project element ground disturbance types and acreages are summarized in Table 1 and discussed in detail below. In total, the proposed action would disturb approximately 120.8 acres. Note that the ground disturbance acreages have been rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre, that they include a buffer (i.e., they may overestimate the amount of actual disturbance), and that they do not double-count areas where ground disturbance areas from multiple elements overlap. Where ground disturbance areas overlap, the acreage is assigned to the higher level of disturbance in Table 1.

Table 1. Ground disturbance types and acres disturbed under the proposed action (all acreage would occur in MCBB critical habitat and this includes core, non-core, and dispersal habitat, as defined in the Effects of the Action Section).

Ground Disturbance Category and Acres Disturbed1 Project Element Name Glading Clearing Grading Excavation Project Total Lift 4 -- -- 0.2 0.1 0.3

Chair 5 Pod -- 0.1 14.2 1.8 16.1

Chair 8 Pod -- 0.1 45.7 2.0 47.8

Tree and Glade Skiing 28.9 ------28.9

Snowmaking ------7.0 7.0 Mountain Coaster ------2.0 2.0

Mountain Bike Trails -- -- 7.7 -- 7.7 Hiking Trails -- -- 1.8 -- 1.8

Zip Line -- 2.5 -- > 0.1 2.5 Equipment Rental/Food & ------0.8 0.8 Beverage Building

First Aid/Ski patrol Building ------0.8 0.8 Vault Toilet Facility at Overflow ------0.3 0.3 Parking Lot

New Parking Lot -- -- 4.6 -- 4.6

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 7

Ground Disturbance Category and Acres Disturbed1 Gate House ------0.2 0.2 Water Tank ------0.3 0.3

Total Ground Disturbance 120.8

1Acreages include a disturbance buffer; the amount of actual ground disturbance may be less than the buffered distance. Areas of overlap, such as where the disturbance buffers for two different elements coincide, have only been counted one time. Disturbance acres have been rounded to the nearest tenth acre.

Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan (MDP) – Phase 1 Project Proposed New Infrastructure

Lift 4 Lift 4 (Figure 2, 4) would be designed for first-time skiers, providing them the opportunity to get a feel for being on skis or boards, riding a lift, and sliding on a very mild grade – a “bunny hill.” It would use a “moving carpet” lift about 450 feet long, with a vertical rise of 80 feet, running along the length of the beginner slope, along the skier’s left edge. It would be installed on a raised berm on ties or concrete blocks. No additional clearing or grading would be needed, as the alignment lies on the edge of the existing beginner run. It would be electrically powered, drawing from an existing transformer in the mid-mountain area. In addition to use by beginner skiers, the lift would also serve as a staging function (i.e., transporting guests from the lower parking lot to the mid-mountain base area) and may be used for tubing, replacing the current cable lift. This infrastructure is not within critical habitat for the MCBB and does not overlap any suitable1 habitat for the species.

Chair 5 Pod The Chair 5 pod (i.e., a ski lift and the runs it serves) would be the next step up from the bunny hill. Chair 5 would be an 1,800 person-per-hour (pph) fixed-grip quad chairlift with a loading conveyor. The lift would be 1,400 feet long, with a vertical rise of 310 feet. It would be a top- drive lift with approximately 7 towers. The lift would be powered from a transformer at the maintenance shop. The power line would be trenched into the proposed Chair 5 top terminal access road, running up the skier’s right side of the pod, from the shop to the upper terminal.

In order to access the Chair 5 bottom terminal, a new 500-foot conveyor, Lift 6, would be installed from near the bottom terminal of Chair 3 to near the bottom terminal of Chair 5. Utility lines for the conveyor would be trenched from the maintenance building into the pod 5 egress skiway to the bottom of the conveyor.

1 In this biological opinion, and consistent with the Forest Service’s BA, suitable habitat is defined as habitat containing the Primary Constituent Elements of MCBB critical habitat, defined in the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly Critical Habitat section.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 8

As shown in Figures 2 and 5, ski runs in this pod were designed to maximize the potential for improving the extent, quality, and connectivity of habitat for the MCBB. While the proposed runs were designed to work with existing topography as much as possible, portions of the runs would need to be graded to create a suitable surface and fall-lines for skier safety and flow. Since the actual extent of grading will not be known until the final engineering review is completed, the 14.2 acres of grading reflects the conservative assumption that the entire area of each run would be graded.

Final engineering could result in alteration of the proposed run alignments. In that case, the same adjustments to benefit MCBB habitat, work with existing topography, and reduce visual impact would be required.

The primary construction access for the lift and runs would be up the Chair 5 top terminal access road (Figure 5). Trees would be cut using mechanized equipment and hauled out on the access road by truck. Footings for the terminals and towers would be dug using an excavator with concrete transported by truck, excavator, or helicopter, depending on accessibility. Towers would be installed on the footings by helicopter.

This infrastructure of the proposed action is within critical habitat for the MCBB and overlaps areas of suitable habitat for the species.

Chair 8 Pod Similar to existing Chair 2, Chair 8 would be a step up in difficulty from Chair 5, accessing mostly intermediate runs with some easier and some more difficult terrain within that category. It would be a fixed-grip quad chairlift with a capacity of 1,800 pph, 2,100 feet long, with a vertical rise of 610 feet. It would be a bottom drive lift with approximately 16 towers. A power line would be trenched into a new access road from the mid-mountain area to the lower terminal of Chair 8. Skiers would use Chair 2 to access the Chair 8 pod.

As shown in Figure 5, there would be seven runs in this pod, including the Snake run which is technically in the Chair 2 pod. These runs were designed based on the same considerations for MCBB habitat, conformity with existing topography, and visual impact reduction outlined for the Chair 5 pod, and any realignment resulting from final engineering would be subject to the same considerations.

The primary construction access for the lift and runs would be up the Chair 8 bottom and top terminal access roads (Figure 6). Trees would be cut using mechanized equipment and hauled out on the bottom terminal access road by truck. Footings for the terminals and towers would be dug using an excavator with concrete transported by truck, excavator, or helicopter, depending on accessibility. Towers would be installed on the footings by helicopter.

Tree and Glade Skiing Tree and glade skiing (i.e., skiing off of cleared runs in areas where trees are spaced widely enough to allow skiing among them) are increasingly popular. Glading is the process of removing trees to open up areas that are currently too densely forested for most skiers to navigate comfortably. Three areas for glading have been identified. One, a tree island between Keno and Blackjack runs, in the Chair 1 pod. The second lies above the snowmaking reservoir, accessed

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 9

from Chairs 1 and 2. The third is in the lower portion of the wooded area between the Chair 2 pod and the Chair 8 pod, with access from Chair 8.

Work would be done by hand or, in some areas, using equipment such as feller-bunchers. Trees cut in the tree island between Keno and Blackjack and in the parcel above the snowmaking pond would be dropped in place and laid across the fall line to serve as water bars to reduce erosion. Trees cut in the area between pods 2 and 8 would be hauled out on the Chair 8 bottom terminal access road by truck (Figure 6). Trees would be limbed, and slash would be chipped and distributed or burned.

Snowmaking Snowmaking is currently limited to primary runs in each pod – Keno off of Chair 1, The Strip off of Chair 2, The Line off of Chair 2, and Rabbit Peak off of Chair 3. Expanding the snowmaking system would create the option to use available water to make snow wherever it was needed most. It would not require more water; it would just provide more flexibility in water use.

This proposal entails expanding system coverage to the other existing, cleared runs in the Chair 1 and Chair 2 pods initially (except Slot Alley, Grandma’s, Grandpa’s, Blackjack, and Bimbo), then to all cleared runs in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods when those pods are developed (Figure 2). The amount of water available is a factor determining the pace of snowmaking expansion, and the 2010 expansion of the snowmaking pond created new options.

The infrastructure necessary to complete this system expansion includes buried water and electric lines, surface hydrants to connect snowmaking guns, and an additional pump house (roughly 600 square feet) when snowmaking in the Chair 8 pod is developed. Approximately 4 miles of trench would be required for the collocated water and electric lines.

Mountain Coaster This proposed mountain coaster would be used only in the summer. Gravity-powered cars holding individual riders or pairs travel on a dual-rail metal track. They start at a loading/unloading terminal at the bottom, are pulled up to the top of the circuit on a straight uphill segment, and then are released onto a downhill segment with turns, climbs, and dips. The track averages 4 to 6 feet above ground level, but peaks can be up to 20 feet high. The coasters are quiet.

The mountain coaster would be situated in the Chair 5 pod area (Figure 2, 6). The top of the circuit would be near the top terminal of Chair 5, and the downhill track would run down the slope to the west, below the pod 5 ski runs. The loading/unloading terminal would be in the mid- mountain area, east of the Chair 3 top terminal. The track would be approximately 0.8 miles long. The mountain coaster would pass over the top of ski runs with bridge spans to avoid skier collisions with supports.

Construction of the mountain coaster would be done primarily by hand. In areas where concrete footings were required (i.e., loops and sharp corners), the footings would be poured in place at accessible sites or prefabricated in another location and hauled into place with a mini excavator.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 10

Mountain Bike Trails This proposal includes construction of a 13-mile mountain biking system including flow and technical trails of various difficulties (Figure 2, 6). The trails depicted in Figure 3 are conceptual and do not represent the actual location. Mountain biking is allowed on the SMNRA’s multi-use Bristlecone Trail, including the portion passing through the ski area. In terms of construction, flow trails would be wider and would include features (e.g., jumps, bridges, seesaws) built of earth, rock, or wood. Technical trails would be narrower, with more turns around natural features like roots and rocks. The average width of flow trails would be 4 feet, while the technical trails would average 2 feet. There would likely be a 3:2 ratio of flow trails to technical trails, respectively. For purposes of this analysis, we assume all trails would be the wider flow trails in order to estimate impacts conservatively.

Trails would be constructed primarily of native material. Rock and soil would be sourced from excavation or grading projects elsewhere at the ski area. Wood products would be a mix of commercial lumber and lumber cut from trees removed for other projects.

All trails, with the exception of the dual-use trail described in the next section, would be restricted to downhill bicycle traffic. Uphill access for lift served mountain biking would be via Chair 2.

Hiking Trail Hiking would be allowed on one of the mountain bike trails descending from the upper terminal of Chair 2 to the mid-mountain base area. Lift rides have been popular with summer visitors, who subsequently make their own way down the mountain. The designated trail would be easier for visitors to use and would reduce the resource impacts of dispersed hiking.

The dual-use hiking/biking trail would be 1 mile long, one of the easier-rated technical trails for bicycles (Dual Use Trail on Figure 6). It would be constructed with three times the width (6 feet wide) of other technical trails with designated sides for hikers and bikers, reducing collision hazard.

Zip Line The proposed zip line would descend from a launch station in the upper portion of Chair 1 pod to a final landing station east of the mid-mountain base area (Figure 6) and would include two segments of zip line.

Installation would require a 30-foot corridor free of trees, but much of the alignment would lie above treetop height, in natural openings, or along cleared ski trails. In areas where the zip line corridor was greater than 15 feet above the treetops, no trees would need to be removed. Since the exact amount of clearing needed will not be known until final engineering, the 2.5 acres of clearing makes the conservative assumption that trees would be cleared along the entire alignment.

Only launch and landing towers would be required, as the cable between them would be a free, unsupported span. The four steel launch and landing towers would be up to 25 feet high, and the cable height would range up to 150 feet above the ground, depending on the ground contour.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 11

Equipment Rental/Food & Beverage Building This building would replace the existing equipment rental/administration building at the upper base area providing approximately 20,000 square-feet of floor space, split between two or possibly three levels. This infrastructure of the proposed action is not within critical habitat for the MCBB and does not overlap any suitable habitat for the species.

First Aid/Ski Patrol Building This structure would house key public safety and administrative functions at the lower base area comprised of about 10,000 square feet on two levels. Power and water would be brought in from the existing maintenance building, and a septic system would be installed in an island in the new parking lot to the northeast. This infrastructure of the proposed action is not within critical habitat for the MCBB and does not overlap any suitable habitat for the species.

Vault Toilet Facility at Overflow Parking Lot The overflow lot is used by the general public as well as ski area visitors. It is roughly a 15- minute walk from the nearest restroom facilities, which are at the mid-mountain base area. The addition of toilet facilities at the overflow parking lot is necessary to improve the experience of both winter and summer visitors. The facility would be a pre-cast structure and would be installed on a 12-foot-by-20-foot pad adjacent to the parking area.

New Parking Lot A new parking lot at the lower base area (Figure 2, 7) is proposed for LCSA MDP. The 3.6-acre paved lot would accommodate about 500 cars, or 1,250 visitors at the industry standard of 2.5 per car. In combination with existing lots, this would accommodate the 3,000-person comfortable carrying capacity of the resort following this expansion. The new parking lot would also serve as a detention basin in the summer months to manage stormwater runoff and would not be used in the summer.

A new, two-way access road, about 1,500 feet long with a 20-foot-wide, paved surface, would be developed from the existing overflow lot. It would run along the western edge of the parking lot, with entries to the lot near the northwest corner and the southwest corner.

Gate House A gate house approximately 6 feet by 10 feet would be constructed between the inbound and outbound lanes of the Lee Canyon access road, at the site of the existing gate, below the entrance to the overflow parking lot. The gate house would be operated during the winter.

Water Tank The ski area’s current culinary water storage tank is insufficient in capacity and in need of replacement. A new 120,000-gallon steel, above-ground tank would be installed west of the snowmaking reservoir, in a grove of trees on the skier’s left side of Snake ski run (Figure 7). This site is accessible, adjacent to in-place piping, and partially screened by vegetation. The existing concrete tank would be filled with sand and abandoned in place, as it is buried beneath occupied MCBB habitat on the Bimbo run.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 12

Maintenance and Operations As a part of maintenance and operations activities, Lee Canyon proposes to monitor, provide upkeep, and repair physical assets and terrain conditions within the LCSA. The LCSA operates in the summer and winter to provide various recreational opportunities. Major maintenance actions occur primarily in the summer after snow has melted. Prior to being implemented, Lee Canyon would list maintenance actions to be undertaken in any particular year in its Summer Operations Plan and submit the plan for review to the Forest Service in the preceding spring. At that time, the Forest Service would determine if upcoming actions are within the scope of this BO or if additional consultation would be needed.

Maintenance and operations at the LCSA would be required for existing and new infrastructure. Existing infrastructure include roads, ski runs, ski lifts, snowmaking, structures, landscaping, vegetation management, erosion management, parking lots, and disc golf (Figure 3). Completion of the new infrastructure would expand maintenance and operations to new infrastructure including biking trails, mountain coaster, and zip line (Figure 2, 4-7). Roads and access routes may be used by personnel or equipment during maintenance and operation activities to access a variety of infrastructure (Figure 3-4). Additional information on the maintenance and operations of the existing and new infrastructure and roads is described below.

Roads Periodic grading of mountain road surfaces and repair of erosion-control features are proposed throughout the LCSA. This work would occur as needed to maintain road function and prevent erosion damage to the road or to adjacent areas. Maintenance work would be completed primarily using heavy equipment. Hand tools would be used where appropriate. Maintenance is currently required for existing ski area roads shown in Figure 3 and would be required for newly constructed roads shown in Figure 6. The newly constructed roads would be used to access Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods after they are completed. Access to construct the proposed roads would be from the existing road network.

Ski Runs Lee Canyon would maintain ski runs through vegetation and erosion management activities including repair of erosion-control features, installation of erosion-control features on existing ski runs where there are none, repair of erosion damage, and vegetation clearing of encroaching vegetation. Currently there are no erosion control features on existing ski runs. Erosion control features would be constructed on new ski runs in Pod 5 and Pod 8 at the same time as the grading and clearing for these runs. Vegetation Management and Erosion Management activities are described in the respective sections below.

Ski Run Grooming Ski run grooming is proposed to continue and is the process of distributing and smoothing natural or manmade snow on established ski runs. Grooming activities occur over the snow and coincide with skiing operations in the late fall, winter, and early spring.

Figure 1. Proposed infrastructure overlaid on Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat areas.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 14

Figure 3. Existing infrastructure of the LCSA area where maintenance and operations are proposed overlaid on Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat areas. Proposed water bars for erosion control are displayed as “Water Bars for Existing Runs”. “Existing Equipment Access” may be during either the winter or summer seasons, or both.

Figure 4. Maintenance proposed infrastructure of the LCSA MDP, where maintenance and operations of proposed infrastructure are overlaid on Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat areas. “Proposed Equipment Access” may be during either the winter or summer seasons, or both.

Figure 5. Existing infrastructure and winter associated proposed projects of the LCSA MDP projects and Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat areas.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 17

Figure 6. Existing infrastructure and summer associated proposed projects of the LCSA MDP projects Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat areas.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0063.R001) 18

Figure 7. Existing infrastructure and proposed project facilities of the LCSA MDP projects Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat areas

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 19

Tracked vehicles known as “snow cats” are used to plow snow into areas of insufficient depth using a blade attached to the front. Once snow is properly distributed a rotating tiller is used to break up the snow, and rubber mats behind the tiller smooth and texture the snow as the snow cat moves across it. During low-snow years, new ski runs may not open and would not be groomed.

Lifts and Lift Rides Regular maintenance of lifts and lift rides would continue to be needed to ensure they are in good mechanical condition. Maintenance personnel and equipment would access lift towers and terminals via the existing access road network, by walking up the lift alignment, or from the nearest access road. Existing and proposed lifts and chairs are shown as thick black and red lines respectively in Figure 5. On occasion, equipment access to lift towers may be needed where typically only personnel access is needed. In such circumstances access routes would be along the existing lift alignment (yellow lines in Figure 3).

Under current operations, scenic lift rides are offered both during the summer and during the winter but are far more popular during the summer. During the summer, Chair 1 is the lift used for scenic lift rides. There is no established trail to the base from the top of Chair 1, so guests are strongly encouraged to ride the lift back down, although some choose not to do so.

Upon completion of the proposed action, summer lift rides would shift to Chair 2 since there would be a designated hiking trail from the top of that lift to the base area. As with all summer uses, guests would be required to agree to terms and conditions requiring them to stay on the designated trails when purchasing their lift tickets or obtaining uphill use passes. Ski area employees, including a summer Bike Patrol, would enforce trail rules as a matter of safety. Guests who venture off trail would be ushered back to the trail and warned that further infractions would result in their removal from the area.

Snowmaking Maintenance of the snowmaking system requires excavating and repairing broken lines and repairing hydrants and towers. This requires equipment and personnel to access snowmaking infrastructure that is on or under existing and proposed ski runs. Snowmaking is currently limited to primary runs in each pod – Keno off of Chair 1, The Strip off of Chair 2, The Line off of Chair 2, and Rabbit Peak off of Chair 3. The exact location of snowmaking infrastructure that may need repair is unknown, but access routes (including those along existing snowmaking lines) are depicted in Figure 5.

Snowmaking operations at Lee Canyon occur during the fall and winter and involve personnel travel along snowmaking lines to access hydrants, running hoses and cables from hydrants and power boxes to snowmaking guns, and production of man-made snow. Snowmaking activities have occurred since 1987 (Titus and Landau 2003). Depending on the year and the natural snow present, more or less snow is needed, and distribution of the man-made snow can change. Additives are not used for the creation of snow. In in typical year, man-made snow is used to create the features in the terrain park and the remainder is distributed, as needed, across all other ski runs.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 20

For the proposed action the only change with regard to proposed snowmaking operations is that there would be additional ski runs where snowmaking operations would take place and man- made snow could be distributed. With a fixed amount of water available for snowmaking (i.e., the capacity of the existing snowmaking pond and the gallons-per-minute of existing wells) and an expanded acreage of ski runs, it is reasonable to assume that the amount of man-made snow distributed over existing ski runs would be reduced since some of the man-made snow would be distributed on the new ski runs.

The exact distribution of man-made snow would continue to vary year-to-year, depending on weather. It is likely that during low-snow years, many of the runs in the Chair 8 pod would not open, and thus would receive no man-made snow. This is similar to the existing situation of the Chair 1 pod not opening during some low-snow years. Given the importance of the beginner terrain in the Chair 5 pod to the ski area’s operational goals (i.e., giving beginning skiers terrain to progress onto that is a step above the Chair 3 terrain but not as challenging as the Chair 2 terrain) it is likely that at least one of the runs in the Chair 5 pod would be a priority to open every year. The operational goal to ensure a run in the Chair 5 pod opens every year would serve as a mechanism to reduce the amount of man-made snow distributed on existing ski runs.

Skiing The BA uses skiing as a generic term to refer to any snow sliding activity using metal-edged skids. This includes skiing and snowboarding as well as things like ski bikes and snowblades. Skiing operations occur during the late fall, winter, and early spring. Skiers ride up lifts and slide down any open run of their choosing. Only areas that are thoroughly covered with snow are open for skiing in order to prevent damage to equipment or injury to guests. Sometimes this requires the use of rope lines and signage to denote closed runs that might otherwise be open given deeper snow cover. During low-snow years, some ski runs may not open.

Structures The existing structures require occasional exterior maintenance such as painting or repairs. This kind of maintenance requires access to the perimeter of structures by equipment and personnel. The access road network provides good access to all existing structures and no other access would be needed. Figure 3 shows existing structures. Proposed structures will require similar maintenance as existing structures.

Landscaping This category covers work around the base area such as spreading woodchips and maintaining landscaping stairs. These activities require equipment and personnel access in and around the base area.

Vegetation Management Vegetation management activities fall into two categories: vegetation clearing and weed control.

Vegetation Clearing Maintenance of existing infrastructure requires ongoing vegetation clearing to remove dead and or dying trees that are potentially a hazard to infrastructure and/or human safety. Hazard tree

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 21

removal would involve removing individual trees (by hand/chainsaw) that have been deemed to pose a hazard. In cases where a hazard tree needs to be removed from within suitable MCBB habitat, the Forest Service will include design criteria to require chainsaws be fueled and lubricated outside of the suitable habitat area to minimize the potential for chemical spills and exposure of MCBB to chemicals. Furthermore, the Forrest Service will include design criteria to require the felling of trees in or adjacent to suitable habitat to be done such that trees are felled in the direction that the impact of the tree on the ground will affect the smallest possible amount of MCBB suitable habitat. Because hazard tree removal involves cutting only the occasional tree in any given year, the amount of biomass produced will be minimal. Depending on the conditions, downed trees may be left on the ground or bucked up and removed from the area. The locations of hazard trees are not known at this time and individual tree cutting projects would be proposed as needed.

In addition to hazard tree removal, regular maintenance of overgrown vegetation (primarily tree saplings) along road corridors, around buildings, and along the margins of ski runs also needs to be conducted. This is anticipated to be minor and will result in a very little biomass accumulation. This work is done by hand using pruning shears or hand-saws. Access for personnel to the margins of all existing roads, buildings, and ski runs is required (see Figure 3).

All hazard tree removal and vegetation clearing efforts will be coordinated with the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA) Wildlife Biologist to assure impacts to MCBB habitat are avoided or minimized during treatment activities.

Weed Control The potential loss of habitat from noxious and invasive plants is considered one of the biggest threats to MCBB. Nonnative plants can impact the MCBB by outcompeting the host or nectar plants this species requires. In the past, nonnative plants have been intentionally seeded for erosion control purposes at the ski area. No such seeding has occurred at the ski area since 2005 but many nonnative plants remain at the ski area from past seedings (Service 2013). Ground disturbing activities have the potential to introduce noxious and invasive plant species particularly in areas where they are already present (US Forest Service 2018).

Noxious and invasive plant surveys were conducted in the action area during 2016 and 2017. No state or federal noxious weeds were observed in the survey area, however, three invasive species were observed: African mustard, prostrate knotweed, and common mullein. According to the surveys, African mustard and common mullein occur relatively infrequently in the action area and are mostly confined to a single isolated area. Prostrate knotweed, however, is more expansive with approximately 13,000 plants occurring over 4.3 acres in 16 different subpopulations.

The following design criteria will be implemented during maintenance activities for existing infrastructure to reduce the risk of new infestations:

• All construction equipment and vehicles used will be cleaned and certified free of noxious weeds and their seeds prior to entrance onto the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 22

(HTNF). This restriction will include equipment and vehicles intended for both on- and off-road use, whether they are owned, leased, or borrowed by either contractors or subcontractors.

• Any fill material proposed for construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance (including any imported topsoil) will come from an on- site or in-canyon location.

• Any straw bales, chips, or other imported mulch used in conjunction with construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance activities will come from a certified weed-free source.

• To the extent feasible, project areas will be designed to avoid known noxious weed infestations; if unavoidable then pretreatment needs will be assessed and conducted prior to construction activities.

• Before ground-disturbing activities begin, weed infestations will be inventoried and infestations within project operating areas and along access routes will be prioritized for treatments.

• A post-project monitoring and treatment plan will be incorporated into all ground disturbing project planning efforts. Monitoring will continue for a minimum of five years after the project is completed to assure an Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) to new infestations.

• Revegetation (seeding/planting) efforts will only be conducted where determined to be appropriate and where they will not negatively impact MCBB habitat. Only Forest Service and Service approved native seed mixes/plants will be used for restoration.

While prevention of weed introduction or spread is always the highest priority for weed control, invasive species are already established at the ski area and will require some form of treatment as part of maintenance of existing infrastructure. Existing weed infestations would be treated as soon as possible, following Forest Service and Service authorization. Other future weed treatments would be proposed as needed and locations are currently unknown. Existing and future noxious and invasive plant infestations will be managed using an integrated approach of treatment methods that may involve hand pulling, mowing, and herbicide treatments.

To minimize the potential for inadvertent negative impacts to host and nectar plants, only manual methods will be used for treating noxious and invasive plants within 100 feet (30 meters) of suitable habitat for MCBB. Manual methods include the following:

• Hand Pulling: Pulling or uprooting plants can be effective against some shrubs, tree saplings, and herbaceous invasive plants. Annuals and tap-rooted plants are particularly susceptible to control by hand-pulling. It is not as effective against many perennial invasive plants with deep underground stems and roots that are often left behind to re-sprout. The advantages of pulling include its small ecological impact, minimal damage to neighboring plants, and low (or no) cost for equipment or supplies.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 23

• Clipping: “Clipping” means to cut or remove seed heads and/or fruiting bodies to prevent germination. This method is labor-intensive and effective for small and spotty infestations. Clipped vegetation will be bagged and removed from the site.

• Herbicides: If herbicides are determined to be necessary for treatment, the ski area must obtain approval from the Forest Service prior to conducting any herbicide treatment. This requirement is included in the current Special Use Permit for the ski area due to the extensive number of special-status plant species at the ski area, many of them endemic to the Spring Mountains. If approved, the Forest Service will provide guidance on appropriate herbicides, application methods, and timing in accordance with HTNF Weed Management direction as well as the criteria below.

In areas further than 500 feet from suitable MCBB habitat, broadcast or boom spraying methods may be used. In areas less than 500 feet but no farther than 100 feet from suitable MCBB habitat, herbicides and mowing methods may be used to treat noxious and invasive plants, but only direct applications of Forest Service-approved herbicides may be used to minimize the potential for inadvertent drift. Direct applications include:

• Directed Broadcast/Spot Spray/Foliar spray- Accomplished by sprayer wand with regulated nozzle in such a fashion that spray is concentrated at the target species. This is typically accomplished using a backpack sprayer.

• Hand/Selective- Treatment of individual plants to avoid spraying other desirable plants. There is a low likelihood of drift or delivery of herbicides away from treatment sites. This method is used in sensitive areas, such as near water, to avoid getting any herbicide on the soil or in the water. Hand/Selective methods could be done under more variable conditions than spot spraying or broadcast spraying. Specific methods include:

o Cut stump – herbicide is sprayed on cut surfaces to eliminate or greatly reduce re- sprouts;

o Dip and clip – similar to cut stump, where cutting tool is first dipped in herbicide, then used to cut target species to be treated;

o Wicking and wiping – herbicide is wiped onto the target species using a wick applicator.

In addition to hand pulling and herbicide use, there may be the need to use mowing to pre-treat dense infestations of noxious and invasive plants. Mowing can reduce biomass to allow other treatments (such as herbicide application) to be more effective. Mowing can also reduce the potential for seed production. To minimize disturbance to MCBB, only hand-held trimmers may be used for mowing between 100 and 500 feet from suitable habitat.

Erosion Management Maintenance of existing infrastructure requires implementation of design criteria to curtail existing erosion issues and prevent future erosion. The ski area currently has one erosion control

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 24

feature that requires periodic maintenance (see Figure 3). This feature is also used as a road and is accessed via the existing road network.

Additional erosion control features are needed on existing ski runs. The final locations of these features will be based on engineering analysis and are not known at this time, but estimated locations are depicted on Figure 3. Installation of these features will require access along the length of each ski run by equipment and personnel. In cases where an existing access road runs along a ski run, that road will be used to get personnel and equipment into place to construct and maintain the erosion control feature. In cases where no access road is on or adjacent to the ski runs, temporary access routes will be used. These temporary access routes will not be improved in any way and will simply be areas where equipment drives, and personnel walk, to get to areas where erosion control features will be installed or maintained. Preliminary locations of these temporary access routes are depicted on Figure 3.

Specifically, the following design criteria would be implemented to reduce the potential for future erosion:

• Prevent water from running down ski run prism particularly on steep grades (20 to 40 percent) and from accumulating on gentle slopes (0 to 30 percent). Water bars and ditches will be constructed to prevent accumulated runoff within the ski run and to divert runoff to undisturbed areas adjacent to the ski run.

• Prevent water from running down roads and trails. Where feasible, use rolling dips rather than water bars in roads to divert water from road surface.

• Construct water bars and rolling dips with a cross-slope of 2 to 5 percent. Minimize cross slopes in areas where infiltration is a possible method to reduce runoff.

• Inspect water bars, rolling dips, culverts, and other areas prone to erosion after major rain events. Repair any damage immediately.

• If any deposition of sediment occurs after a rain event, locate the source of the sediment, replace the sediment, and – if possible – install measures to prevent erosion at that location in the future.

• Install infiltration trenches to intercept runoff from ski lift loading and unloading areas. Where soil conditions permit (i.e. areas where soils are not cobbly or rocky), use erosion-control mat to protect cut and fill areas surrounding lift terminal areas and ramps.

• Protect ditch outlets (or any point of water discharge) with rip-rap or other methods to slow water velocity and disperse runoff.

• Inspect and repair water bars, rolling dips, and culverts on a weekly basis during construction. Repair any damage immediately.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 25

• When constructing trenches, place excavated material on the uphill side of the trench whenever possible. Manage material placement to avoid trapping or concentrating water flow during construction. Fill trenches with a 2-inch surcharge/berm to allow for settlement. Construct water bars over trenched areas as in ski runs.

• Use correctly installed silt fence or weed free straw wattle to prevent sediment from entering existing drainage channels or suitable MCBB habitat, for projects within 15 meters of these features.

• Before initiating surface-disturbing activities, install sediment and stormwater controls (e.g., silt fence or straw wattle) upslope and downslope from the disturbed area.

• Install suitable stormwater and erosion-control measures to stabilize disturbed areas and waterways before seasonal shutdown of project operations or when severe or successive storms are expected.

Erosion issues at the ski area occur after high-intensity summer storms and not as a result of snowmelt (US Forest Service 2018). Certain parts of the ski area naturally collect sediment after such severe weather events. The current deposition areas are in the base area and are shown on Figure 3. After such events, these areas need to be cleaned out and materials moved elsewhere. Generally, these materials are used to repair erosion damage as described above. This action requires the use of heavy equipment to remove, transport, and replace materials.

The location of erosion damage at the ski area in future years is unknown. During the summer of 2017 and again in the summer of 2018, significant erosion damage occurred due to severe storms. Repair work in 2017 impacted approximately 0.2 acres of MCBB habitat while 2018 repairs impacted none. An unknown amount of habitat was removed by the erosion itself during these two events. With the implementation of the design criteria above, the acreage of habitat impacted by erosion repair work, as well as by erosion itself, is expected to be reduced.

Parking Lots The existing parking areas, including the upper portion of SR 156 and the lower overflow lot, periodically need repair and resurfacing work as would the new parking lot and the access road connecting it to SR 156 after completion. This work requires heavy equipment and takes place largely in the footprint of the parking areas. Existing and proposed parking lots are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. The proposed new parking area would only be used in the winter.

Disc Golf Maintenance of disc golf trails involves grading and repair of the trail surface, repair of erosion- control features on and around trails, installation of hole baskets in the spring, and removal of hole baskets in the fall. All disc golf maintenance is done by hand. Access is obtained along the disc golf course and from adjacent existing access roads. See Figure 3 for access and maintenance routes.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 26

The ski area operates the 18-hole disc golf course from May to September. This course is mostly in the Chair 1 pod. Disc golfers may choose to ride Chair 1 to the top of the course or hike to the top. There are small segments of trail used by disc golfers to get between the end of one hole and the beginning of another but, due to the nature of the activity, most of the time, golfers are off- trail.

Hiking and Mountain Biking Maintenance of hiking and biking trails involves grading and repair of the trail surface, repair of erosion-control features on and around trails, and watering of some mountain-bike trails to reduce dust and maintain a smooth surface. Most of this work is done by hand but some maintenance may require a mini excavator. Trail watering would be done using an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) with a water tank. Access routes for hiking and biking trail maintenance would be along the trails themselves.

The ski area currently has one designated hiking trail. That trail goes from the base area to the southwest and connects in with the Bristlecone Trail. The first 350 feet of this trail is covered in shredded wood chips and the remainder is a natural substrate trail. Ski area guests also often hike on the access roads or directly up the existing ski runs, although neither of these behaviors are encouraged. Under the proposed action, hiking would be limited to the existing connector trail to the Bristlecone Trail and the new hiking trail constructed to the top of Chair 2.

Mountain biking operations would occur only during the summer. Riders and their bikes would be loaded onto Chair 2 and transported to the top of the trail network. From there, they would choose which designated trail to ride down to get back to the base area. Riders would likely repeat this cycle multiple times over a day of riding.

Hiking and biking guests would be required to stay on designated trails, and this would be enforced by the Bike Patrol.

Litter Clean-up The ski area does not currently undertake litter clean-up operations, but is proposing to send out employees or volunteers to collect litter both on and off the ski runs. This would be done by assigning people designated routes to walk, picking up litter as they go.

Snow Removal During the winter, the ski area clears snow from their paved and unpaved parking lots and walkways. Cleared snow is piled on the margins of the lots. Some years these piles melt and are reformed multiple times throughout the year and can persist into the spring. Ice melting products are applied to paved surfaces when needed. The Forest Service would restrict the application of such products to areas that do not drain into MCBB habitat.

Fuel and Other Chemicals Hazardous fluids stored and used in the permit area include fuel, oil, lubricants, solvents, paint, etc., that are necessary for normal ski area operations. With the exception of fuel, these fluids are kept in containers up to 55 gallons and stored at the lower maintenance area in compliance with

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 27

applicable regulations. Three large fuel storage tanks (two underground and one above ground) are located near the maintenance facility. All underground tanks are equipped with continuous monitoring systems, and above-ground tanks are located inside secondary containment structures. There have been no spill events in the permit area under current management. No fueling of vehicles or equipment takes place outside the lower maintenance area.

Mountain Coaster Mountain coasters require inspections of the track and footings as well as repair of any settling or erosion that occurs around the footings. This requires access along the coaster corridor by equipment and personnel. The mountain coaster would operate only in the summer. Operations would involve guests proceeding to the boarding area near the top of Chair 3, riding around the coaster track, and getting off at the same place they boarded.

Zip Line A zip line is, simply put, a pulley and brake system on an inclined cable which allows the rider, suspended from the pulley in a harness, to traverse the length of the cable at a controllable speed. Zip lines provide an opportunity to experience the forest canopy while having an exciting ride at the same time. The proposed zip line would descend from a launch station in the upper portion of Chair 1 pod to a final landing station east of the mid-mountain base area (Figure 6). The entire experience would involve two segments of zip line.

Maintenance of zip lines involves access to the terminals to ensure cable anchors are secure. This requires ATV access along existing access roads and a proposed mountain bike trail that leads to the proposed bottom terminal of span 1 and the top terminal of span 2 of the zip line. Zip line operations would occur only during the summer. Riders would be loaded onto Chair 1 and transported to the top of that lift. From there, they would walk along a short path leading to the launch station for the first span of the zip line.

Project Surveys The Forest Service proposes to conduct additional surveys of habitat for MCBB, as specified in Appendix B of the BA (Westover 2019), to implement the proposed action, avoid and minimize effects to the MCBB, and evaluate effects from the proposed action.

Proposed Minimization Measures The Forest Service developed the proposed action to avoid or minimize any adverse effects to MCBB, but also to maximize potentially positive effects on the amount, quality, and connectivity of MCBB habitat at the LCSA. The alignments of lifts, runs, and trails, and the sites of proposed structures, were shifted wherever possible to avoid, and to potentially improve, create, or connect habitat, wherever possible.

To further minimize adverse effects to the MCBB and its designated critical habitat that may result from the proposed action, the Forest Service and Lee Canyon will implement the following protective minimization measures. The Service and Forest Service coordinated to develop these measures based on those originally proposed by the Forest Service as “design criteria” in the BA.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 28

We have done this to improve clarity and to incorporate current Service guidance without substantially changing the intent of the design criteria in the Forest Service’s BA.

1. The Forest Service and Service will approve qualified MCBB biologists and monitors to ensure they have a sufficient combination of training, education, and experience to effectively implement these minimization measures as well as the design criteria in the Forest Service BA. The Forest Service will provide the Service with a written request and summary of proposed Qualified MCBB Biologist and Monitor qualifications. Possession of a 10(A)1(a) permit for the work on MCBB will automatically qualify an individual as a Qualified MCBB Biologist. A Qualified Biologist will be able to implement all aspects of the design criteria and minimization measure work associated with MCBB. A Qualified Monitor will not be permitted to identify or mark habitat associated with the project unless under the direct supervision of a Qualified MCBB Biologist. The Forest Service will not permit any individual with conflicts of interest2 to work as Qualified Biologists or Monitors. 2. In order to ensure that design criteria and minimization measures are understood and followed, a qualified biologist will be on site when construction begins to educate contractors and construction crews, and periodically to ensure that design criteria and minimization measures are being followed throughout project implementation. These design criteria and minimization measures have been compiled into an implementation table for use by managers and biologists to assure compliance during implementation (Appendix C in the BA). The project will be monitored as required by the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and supplemental General Management Plan for the SMNRA, and as outlined in Appendix B in the BA. 3. If both agree, the Forest Service and Service may update or modify Appendix B and Appendix C as stand-alone documents where it may improve the implementation or application of design criteria and minimization measures. Updates and modifications to Appendix B and C will have the full date to specify the version. All reporting and data collection will specify the versions of Appendix B implemented. 4. A Qualified MCBB Biologist will approve circumstances where it is not permissible to apply the design criteria and minimization measures (e.g. “if possible”, “wherever practical”). 5. Qualified MCBB Biologists and Monitors with have the authority to halt work as necessary to resolve any issue with interpreting, applying, or implementing the design criteria and minimization measures. 6. Avoid suitable habitat in the design phase wherever possible.

2 e.g. “A situation in which an individual’s personal interest interferes with the objectivity of actions or judgments. These include situations where actions or judgments are affected by opportunities for career advancement, professional prestige, personal allegiances or animosities, or pecuniary gain” (FSM 4086.05). A situation could include actions, inaction, or other decisions related to activities that may affect the Mount Charleston blue butterfly or its habitat.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 29

7. Establish and mark suitable habitat, as described in Appendix B in the BA, prior to implementation of construction activities in an area. 8. All construction equipment and vehicles used will be cleaned and certified free of noxious weeds and their seeds prior to entrance onto the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. This restriction will include equipment and vehicles intended for both on- and off- road use, whether they are owned, leased, or borrowed by either contractors or subcontractors. 9. Wherever practical, avoid impacting marked suitable habitat within the construction disturbance area. If areas of marked habitat must be disturbed (i.e. removed), delineate the disturbed habitat and subtract the acreage from the incidental take allowance for removed habitat. 10. Do not stage equipment or materials within suitable habitat. 11. Do not store or chip slash (i.e., small woody debris) within suitable habitat. 12. To maximize the potential for colonization of host and larval plants in disturbed areas, spread chipped slash with a depth of no more than 2 inches above the soil surface at any point (Carvajal-Acosta et al. 2015). Do not spread chipped slash in areas of suitable habitat. 13. Do not burn slash piles within 5 meters of suitable habitat. 14. When broadcast burning for slash cleanup, remove slash or other fuels from a 5-meter buffer around suitable habitat, if suitable habitat is adjacent to the area to be burned. 15. If possible, access routes will not cross suitable habitat when snow cover is not present. If not possible, see number 24 below. 16. Complete final layout of hiking and mountain biking trails after suitable habitat has been marked. No mountain biking or hiking trails will be placed within suitable habitat. 17. Do not deposit excavated material within suitable habitat or directly upslope of suitable habitat unless controls are put in place to ensure material does not erode into suitable habitat. 18. Conduct activities around suitable habitat outside the adult MCBB flight period (mid- June through mid-September) when possible. 19. Maintain snow cover in areas where suitable habitat exists while the ski area is open for skiing. If insufficient snow cover exists in an area of suitable habitat (i.e., rocks and vegetation are visible), mark the area as a hazard so skiers will avoid damaging habitat or individual MCBB with their skis. 20. Maintain snow cover in areas where suitable habitat exists while the ski area is open for skiing. If insufficient snow cover exists in an area of suitable habitat, mark the area as a hazard and ensure that no grooming takes place in areas where the tiller could hit the ground. 21. Designate litter clean-up routes that do not traverse suitable habitat.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 30

22. Do not plow/blow snow from roads or parking lots into areas of suitable habitat. 23. Do not apply ice melting products on areas that drain into adjacent suitable habitat. 24. When access across suitable habitat without snow cover is necessary, designate construction travel routes that minimize the amount of habitat impacted in coordination with the SMNRA Wildlife Biologist prior to implementation. Install rope lines on the boundaries of travel routes to constrain ground disturbance. When working in or passing through suitable habitat, minimize impacts on adults and habitat to the extent possible by: • Avoiding disturbance on host and nectar plants by stepping in the spaces between plants. • Minimizing solid and rock disturbance. • Avoiding unnecessary disturbance to adults. • Inspecting and clearing equipment and clothing to prevent the introduction of invasive organisms. 25. Pets must be on leash and restricted to designated trails. 26. Install interpretive signs in prominent locations with pictures and information about the MCBB, including reminders to stay on designated trails. 27. Include text on summer trail maps reminding visitors to stay on designated trails in order to protect the MCBB. 28. Verbally remind visitors renting equipment, purchasing lift tickets, or asking for trail information to stay on designated trails in order to protect the MCBB. Include terms and conditions associated with purchasing lift tickets or renting equipment that require staying on designated trails. 29. Install rope lines or signs to minimize entry into suitable habitat near high traffic areas. 30. When topsoil is present and can be salvaged, remove and stockpile with appropriate cover and erosion-control methods. Consult Forest Service soil scientist for determination of presence of viable topsoil. 31. Minimize project disturbance areas and delineate limits of disturbance with rope lines. 32. Conduct any revegetation according to guidelines and specifications established between the Forest Service and Service at the time such revegetation is proposed. Seed mixes must be approved by the Forest Service and Service. 33. Confine all vehicle traffic (i.e., wheeled vehicles) to designated travel ways. Vehicle parking shall be within designated parking or work areas. 34. For ski lift construction minimize the use of backhoes, use helicopters to deliver towers and place equipment. 35. For ski run construction, over the snow removal of large trees will be used when conditions allow.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 31

36. Plan projects to minimize re-entry after the site is stabilized. 37. Establish designated areas for equipment staging, stockpiling materials, and parking to minimize the area of ground disturbance. 38. All equipment must be fueled and lubricated outside of the suitable habitat area to minimize the potential for chemical spills and exposure of MCBB to chemicals. 39. Felling of trees in or adjacent to suitable habitat must be done such that trees are felled in the direction that the impact of the tree on the ground will affect the smallest possible amount of MCBB suitable habitat. 40. If glading of trees would result in habitat removal, do not conduct glading operations in the areas where habitat removal could occur. 41. A qualified botanist, biologist, or ecologist will monitor the project area for erosion and noxious or invasive plants in the spring and summer after construction projects occur. They will also monitor to ensure no erosion is occurring in existing occupied MCBB habitat, and implement design criteria listed in Erosion Management section above. 42. Forest Service and Humboldt-Toiyabe NF Best Management Practices (Humboldt- Toiyabe Supplemental FSM 2080) will be employed during project implementation to prevent and control the introduction and spread of invasive species, including but not limited to:

o All equipment and personal gear will be cleaned prior to mobilization into the site;

o Any new infestations of noxious weeds discovered during implementation will be documented and locations marked on a map or GPS. Newly discovered noxious weeds will be treated prior to conducting additional activities within the infested area. 43. Conduct surveys to minimize disturbance to MCBB and its habitat.

o Perform survey activities in a manner where: 1) disturbance from surveys to butterflies in all life stages shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible (e.g. avoid disturbance to host and nectar plants, minimize soil and rock disturbance, avoid unnecessary disturbance to adults); 2) disturbance to habitat from surveys shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible (e.g. stepping in the spaces between plants, avoid disturbance to host and nectar plants, minimize soil and rock disturbance, prevent introduction of invasive organisms by inspecting equipment and personal clothing and cleaning as necessary).

o Surveys for habitat should occur between June 15 and September 15 and will occur at intensity sufficient to detect nectar and host plants. Surveys for adults shall not be conducted during inclement weather conditions that would significantly reduce the ability to detect the subspecies (e.g., low temperatures, strong wind, cloudy weather, precipitation). Photos of butterflies and plants shall be taken as vouchers to confirm subspecies identification. If necessary, parts of

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 32

plants free of butterfly activity (e.g. stem, leaf, flower, seed pod) may be collected only to the extent necessary to confirm identification.

o Habitat will be identified by the most current scientific understanding of Mount Charleston blue butterfly resource requirements with agreement from the Service. 44. Seed collection for host and nectar plants will occur in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of impacts to all life stages and conserves the function of habitat by:

o collecting seed out of or near the peripheries of habitat with a lower likelihood of use by MCBB,

o when occurring in or near habitat, seed collection focused activities should occur at times that reduce disturbance during the flight season, conform to collection protocol standards identified by the Forest Service and agreed to by the Service, such as Bureau of Land Management Seeds of Success program, to conserve host and nectar plant populations while attaining appropriate seeds for habitat restoration.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SERVICE’S DETERMINATIONS

Jeopardy Determination Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. “Jeopardize the continued existence of” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR § 402.02).

The jeopardy analysis in this biological opinion considers the effects of the proposed Federal action, and any cumulative effects, on the rangewide survival and recovery of the listed species. It relies on four components: (1) the Status of the Species, which describes the rangewide condition of the species, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes the condition of the species in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the species; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the consequences to the species caused by the proposed Federal action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action; and (4) the Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area on the species.

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the current status of the species, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, and distribution of that species.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 33

Adverse Modification Determination Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or to adversely modify designated critical habitat (CH). A final rule revising the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” was published on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). The final rule became effective on October 28, 2019. The revised definition states: “Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.” The analysis of critical habitat in this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of Critical Habitat, which describes the range-wide condition of the critical habitat in terms of the key components (i.e., essential habitat features, primary constituent elements, or physical and biological features) that provide for the conservation of the listed species, the factors responsible for that condition, and the intended value of the critical habitat overall for the conservation/recovery of the listed species; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes the condition of the critical habitat in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the value of the critical habitat in the action area for the conservation/recovery of the listed species; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the consequences caused by of the proposed Federal action, including consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action, on the key components of critical habitat that provide for the conservation of the listed species, and how those effects are likely to influence the conservation and recovery value of the affected critical habitat; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluate the effects of future non-Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area on the key components of critical habitat that provide for the conservation of the listed species and how those impacts are likely to influence the conservation value of the affected critical habitat.

Past designations of critical habitat have used the terms "primary constituent elements" (PCEs), "physical or biological features" (PBFs) or "essential features" to characterize the key components of critical habitat that provide for the conservation of the listed species. The new critical habitat regulations (81 FR 7414) discontinue use of the terms “PCEs” or “essential features,” and rely exclusively on use of the term “PBFs” for that purpose because that term is contained in the statute. However, the shift in terminology does not change the approach used in conducting a “destruction or adverse modification” analysis, which is the same regardless of whether the original designation identified PCEs, PBFs or essential features. For those reasons, in this biological opinion, references to PCEs or essential features should be viewed as synonymous with PBFs. All of these terms characterize the key components of critical habitat that provide for the conservation of the listed species.

For purposes of making the adverse modification determination, the Service evaluates if the effects of the proposed Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, are likely to impair or preclude the capacity of critical habitat in the action area to serve its intended conservation function to an extent that appreciably diminishes the rangewide value of CH for the conservation of the listed species. The key to making that finding is understanding the value (i.e.,

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 34

the role) of the critical habitat in the action area for the conservation/recovery of the listed species based on the Environmental Baseline analysis.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES

Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly The rangewide status of the MCBB consists of information on its listing history, distribution, status and trends, critical habitat units, and species account. A summary of the MCBB rangewide status for purposes of this biological opinion is provided below and more detailed information can be obtained from the final rules listing and designating critical habitat available on request by contacting the Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office in Las Vegas at (702) 515-5230, and providing File No. 08ENV00-2019-F-0163.R001.

The MCBB was listed as endangered on October 21, 2013 (Service 2013), and critical habitat was designated July 30, 2015 (Service 2015). The primary threats to the MCBB identified in the final rules to list the species and designate critical habitat were loss and degradation of habitat due to changes in natural fire regimes and succession; increases in nonnative plants; impacts to the species from feral horses (Equus ferus); the implementation of recreational development projects and fuel reduction projects; and because the species exists as a few small populations.

The typical flight, feeding, and breeding period for the adult MCBB is early July to mid-August with a peak in late July, although the subspecies has been observed as early as mid-June and as late as mid-September (Austin 1980, Weiss et al. 1997, Boyd and Austin 1999, Kingsley 2007, Pinyon 2011, Andrew et al. 2013, Herrmann 2014, Thompson et al. 2014). During this time, female Mount Charleston blue butterflies oviposit or lay a single egg per host plant (Thompson et al. 2014). Eggs (potentially those laid early in the flight period) may hatch into larva that will feed on the host plant during the summer and enter diapause (period of delayed development) as larva (Emmel and Shields 1980); alternatively, eggs (potentially those laid later in the flight period) may diapause over winter and hatch the next spring (Ferris and Brown 1981, Scott 1986). As with other Shasta blue butterflies, the MCBB larva is likely to diapause at the base of its larval host plant or in the surrounding substrate (Emmel and Shields 1980). The MCBB thus completes its life cycle in two (Ferris and Brown 1981, Scott 1986) or more years if it enters diapause multiple times (Boyd and Murphy 2008).

The status of MCBB populations is evaluated using criteria that results in 3 categories. A population is “presumed extirpated” when for more than 20 years neither formal surveys or informal observations have detected MCBB, and host and nectar plants are absent or diminished to unsustainable densities due to vegetation shifts that render the habitat unsuitable. A location is “presumed occupied” when MCBB have been observed in the last 20 years, but never in successive years, or both host and nectar plants are present at sustainable densities. The presumed occupied designation allows for extirpation and recolonization events to occur. MCBB and other butterflies have long been known to have annual shifts in population size, which can result in difficulties detecting a species in a habitat that continues to be occupied or is only occupied during and shortly after years of abundance (Murphy et al. 1990, Weiss et al. 1997). A

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 35

location is “known occupied” when MCBB observations occur in successive years and both host and nectar plants are present in sustainable densities.

It is important to understand that MCBB are difficult to detect. Eggs and larva are tiny, and adults cryptic. Adults may appear for only a brief period during the flight season. Survey effort for MCBB has varied widely over the years, resulting in disparate results relative to detecting presence/absence at a given location. We now know that surveys must occur multiple times within a flight season and be conducted successively for multiple years to establish presence/absence information. Although we have used a 20 year timeframe to help establish presence absence, we now know that surveys may need to be conducted over a time period greater than 20 years given the difficulty of detecting the species in any one year. It is for these same reasons that the presence of host and nectar plants at sustainable densities (suitable habitat, or habitat that contains the PCEs), is an important aspect of determining occupancy.

There are 16 historic locations where populations of the MCBB have been known to occur. We identified 17 locations in the final listing rule, but have since determined, based on Boyd and Murphy (2008), that the Youth Camp and Foxtail locations were the same. In addition, we have also determined that Upper Kyle Canyon Ski Area and Old Town were the same location as reported by Andrew et al. (2013). The area currently identified as the Upper Bristlecone Trailhead location was previously labeled as the Lee Canyon holotype in early listing documents (Service 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013); however, the Lee Canyon holotype location is the same as the Lee Meadow location (personal communication from Bruce Boyd, November 5, 2012). Since the MCBB was listed, one new occupied location called McFarland and Bonanza Peaks Ridge was discovered by Thompson (2018) in 2016, bringing the total number of locations to 16 (Figure 8). Of these 16 locations, 4 are known occupied, 7 are presumed occupied, and 5 are presumed extirpated. Except for the McFarland and Bonanza Peaks Ridge location, all MCBB presumed and known occupied locations are within the critical habitat units (Figure 8).

Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly Critical Habitat We designated three critical habitat units totaling approximately 5,214 acres (2,110 hectares) for the MCBB: Unit 1 South Loop is 2,228 acres (902 hectares), Unit 2 Lee Canyon 2,569 acres (1,040 hectares), and Unit 3 North Loop is 413 acres (167 hectares). All three critical habitat units include occupied locations. Locations and critical habitat units of the MCBB are characterized by primary constituent elements listed below that are essential for the butterfly to carry out its life history processes. Primary constituent elements (PCEs) characterizing habitat for the MCBB are derived from work by Austin 1980, Weiss et al. 1997, Austin and Leary 2008, Boyd and Murphy 2008, Pinyon 2011, Andrew et al. 2013, and Thompson et al. 2014.

1. Primary Constituent Element 1: Areas of dynamic habitat between 2,500 meters (m) (8,200 ft) and 3,500 m (11,500 ft) elevation with openings or where disturbance provides openings in the canopy that have no more than 50 percent tree cover (allowing sunlight to reach the ground), widely spaced low (< 15 cm (0.5 ft)) forbs and grasses, and exposed soil and rock substrates. When taller grass and forb plants greater than or equal to 15 cm (0.5 ft) in height are present, the density is less than five per m² (50 per ft²).

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 36

Figure 8. Mount Charleston blue butterfly locations and critical habitat, Clark County, Nevada. Location 12 is the same as and coincides with Location 13 making the total number of locations 16.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 37

2. Primary Constituent Element 2: The presence of one or more species of host plants required by larvae of the MCBB for feeding and growth. Known larval host plants are Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus, Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila, and Astragalus platytropis. Densities of host plants must be greater than two per m² (0.2 per ft²). 3. Primary Constituent Element 3: The presence of one or more species of nectar plants required by adult Mount Charleston blue butterflies for reproduction, feeding, and growth. Common nectar plants include Erigeron clokeyi, Hymenoxys lemmonii, Hymenoxys cooperi and Eriogonum umbellatum var. versicolor. Densities of nectar plants must occur at more than two per m² (0.2 per ft²) for smaller plants, such as E. clokeyi, and above 0.1 per m² (0.01 per ft²) for larger and taller plants such as Hymenoxys sp. and E. umbellatum. Nectar plants typically occur within 10 m (33 ft) of larval host plants and in combination provide nectar during the adult flight period between mid-July and early August. Additional nectar sources that could be present in combination with the common nectar plants include Antennaria rosea, Cryptantha sp., Ericameria nauseosa ssp., Erigeron flagellaris (Trailing daisy), Guiterrezia sarothrae, Monardella odoratissima, Petradoria pumila var. pumila, and Potentilla concinna var. concinna.

For Primary Constituent Element 3, Thompson (2018c) provided clarification on species that are categorized as ‘smaller’ and ‘larger’ nectar plants. Other small nectar plants include Erigeron flagellaris, Antennaria rosea, Cryptantha sp., and Monardella odoratissima whereas Ericameria nauseosa, Guiterrezia sarothrae, and Petradoria pumila var. pumila would be considered large plants. The distribution of Potentilla concinna var. concinna has been observed to coincide with the MCBB at the South Loop Trail location; however, it may be avoided as a nectar plant as no butterflies have been observed to use it despite an overlap in distribution.

Not all critical habitat contains the PCEs necessary to support the MCBB. Within each CHU there is a subset of areas that have the PCEs, referred to in this BO as suitable habitat. These suitable habitat areas have consistently had PCEs and occupied locations over time such that these areas with PCEs and occupied locations tend to be consistent between years. Based on the most recent mapping efforts, we estimate there is between 150–660 acres of habitat with PCEs in CHU 1, 144.9 acres of habitat with PCEs in CHU 2, and 50 acres of habitat with PCEs in CHU 3. We estimate the total amount of habitat with PCEs in all CHUs is between 344.9 and 854.9 acres. Our estimate of habitat for CHU 1 is uncertain because of the patchy distribution described by Andrew et al. (2013) and the recovery status of habitat within the Carpenter 1 Fire perimeter. These estimates of habitat within the CHUs do not include 35 acres of additional habitat discovered northwest of CHU 2 in 2016.

CHU 1 contains two historical MCBB locations in Upper Kyle Canyon; known occupied South Loop Trail and presumed occupied Griffith Peak. MCBB were first found to occupy The South Loop Trail in 1928 and are presumed to have occupied the site since that time (Boyd and Murphy 2008). Recent surveys of the South Loop Trail in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 all found MCBB present (Thompson et al. 2014, Thompson 2018a, Thompson 2020). Only Bonanza Trail in CHU 2 has more MCBB observations over the past 10 years than South Loop Trail, illustrating that South Loop Trail is very consistent and may be improving despite the 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire. By 2015, much of South Loop Trail MCBB habitat

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 38

showed no residual signs of the disturbance, though some areas have seen a decrease in suitable habitat due to the post-fire colonization of grasses (Thompson 2018a). Over the past 10 years, only the 2012 surveys of the South Loop Trail recorded more MCBB observations than the 2019 surveys. Surveys of Griffith Peak have not resulted in MCBB observations since an initial observation in 1996 (Weiss et al. 1997). Since the 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire, which burned vegetation on and near Griffith Peak, the amount of suitable habitat is significantly reduced (Thompson 2018a). However, Griffith Peak is presumed occupied due to the presence of some suitable habitat, but the absence of recorded MCBB observations at this location for more than 20 years and the loss of suitable habitat due to the post-fire colonization of tall herbaceous plant cover, require the status of this location and South Loop Trail be monitored closely (Thompson 2018a). Though the post-fire quality of CHU 1 is diminished, the area continues to support the PCEs necessary for MCBB recovery, including a high density of all 3 host plants and the nectar plants, E. clokeyi and H. lemmonii within this habitat unit (Thompson 2018a).

CHU 2 contains 8 historical MCBB populations in Upper Lee Canyon. Both the Lee Canyon Ski Area and Bonanza Trail are known occupied locations. Recent surveys in the Lee Canyon Ski Area found MCBB in low numbers in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2018 (Thompson et al. 2014, Thompson 2018a, U.S. Forest Service 2016, U.S. Forest Service 2017). In 2019, however, over 100 MCBB were observed during 6 separate visits to the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs. A third ski run, known as the Line, also contained over 30 MCBB when surveyed in 2019. The Line ski run is approximately 100 meters east of the Bimbo ski run. In total, over 150 MCBB were observed in the Lee Canyon Ski Area in 2019 (Thompson 2020). The LCSA ski runs contain some of the highest quality patches of suitable habitat found in the Spring Mountains. Recent surveys of Bonanza Trail in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 all found MCBB present (Thompson et al. 2014, Thompson 2018a, Thompson 2020, U.S. Forest Service 2016, U.S. Forest Service 2017). Since 2010, Bonanza Trail has had over 450 MCBB observations, more than any other surveyed location. During 2019 more than 100 individuals were encountered during MCBB surveys along Bonanza Trail. Surveys of both Bonanza Trail and the LCSA found more individuals in 2019 than all other survey years, except for the Bonanza Trail surveys of 2015. Both locations have high densities of host and nectar plants to support MCBB recovery and may serve as source populations for presumed occupied locations in CHU 2 during years of abundance (Thompson 2018a).

In addition to the 2 known occupied locations of CHU 2, there are an additional 5 presumed occupied locations and 1 presumed extirpated location found in Upper Lee Canyon. Three of the presumed occupied locations surveyed in 2019 were found to have MCBB (Thompson 2020). MCBB were identified during surveys at Foxtail for the first time since 1998, Upper Bristlecone Trailhead for the first time since 1995, and Bristlecone Trail for the first time since 1995. Upper Bristlecone Trailhead and Bristlecone Trail have moderate densities of host plants and moderate densities of nectar plants, while Foxtail has moderate to high densities of host plants and moderate to low densities of nectar plants (Thompson 2018a). Of the 2 remaining presumed occupied locations, MCBB were found at Gary Abbott in 2017, and Lower Parking has not had recent MCBB observations. MCBB were found at Gary Abbot in 2017 for the first time since 1995, and the habitat has consistently supported moderate densities of host and nectar plants and could serve as a corridor between Bonanza Trail and the Lee Canyon Ski Area, the two

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 39 populations with the most observations in 2019. The habitat quality in Lower Parking has been diminished in recent years. Thompson estimated that approximately 20-25% of the Lower Parking habitat was lost due to tree thinning and wood chipping sometime between 2012 and 2015 (Thompson 2018a). However, Lower Parking contains moderate densities of host and nectar plants and is surrounded by known and presumed occupied locations, which may allow this location to serve as a corridor between larger, sustainable habitats (Thompson 2018a). The final historical location found in CHU 2 is Lee Meadows. The low host and nectar plant density in the Lee Meadows location is approximately the same as it was in 1995, however, the absence of any MCBB observations since 1995 and the presence of grasses, which significantly diminish the suitability of this habitat, has led to the conclusion that Lee Meadows is presumed extirpated (Andrew et al. 2013).

The Service has known for some time that the periodic maintenance (removal of trees and shrubs) of the ski runs at LCSA effectively inhibits forest succession on the ski slopes and serves to maintain conditions favorable to the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly, and to its host and nectar plants (Service 2012). Overall, the status of the subspecies appears to be improving in CHU 2. Although we have no definitive evidence that management efforts on the part of the Forest Service and Lee Canyon to protect and improve MCBB habitat within the LCSA have been successful, the status of MCBB has improved concurrently with this management in CHU 2. CHU 2 contains the PCEs necessary for MCBB recovery in the 2 known occupied locations and the 5 presumed occupied locations.

CHU 3 is located in Upper Kyle Canyon and contains only one historical population, North Loop Trail. MCBB have not been observed in this area since 1995. However, the North Loop Trail location contains suitable MCBB habitat and is considered presumed occupied. The lack of recent MCBB observations and the great distance of this location from known occupied locations in CHU 1 or CHU 2 could mean this population may be extirpated. Despite the absence of recent MCBB observations, North Loop Trail has moderate to high densities of host and nectar plants and, for this reason, CHU 3 has the necessary PCEs to support MCBB recovery (Thompson 2018a).

There are 5 additional historical locations that occur outside of the designated CHUs; 4 presumed extirpated locations and 1 known occupied location. The population between McFarland and Bonanza Peaks Ridge first recorded MCBB observations in 2016. Occupancy of MCBB at the new site was confirmed the following year in 2017 (Thompson 2018a). McFarland and Bonanza Peaks Ridge are approximately 1 mile north from the northwest edge of CHU 2. Of the 4 presumed extirpated populations outside of CHUs, Cathedral Rock and Old Town are in Upper Kyle Canyon near CHU 1, Deer Creek is in Upper Kyle Canyon near CHU 3, and Willow Creek is approximately 5 miles northwest of the McFarland and Bonanza Peaks Ridge location. Both Cathedral Rock and Old Town have not had MCBB observations since the 1970s, Deer Creek has not had MCBB observations since the 1950s, and Willow Creek has not had MCBB observations since 1928.

There are no population estimates of the species (number of individuals in each life stage throughout its range), but at the time of listing, we considered the MCBB to be declining.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 40

Population estimates cannot be determined because not all areas have been surveyed every year, the number of survey attempts differ for locations, different survey methodologies have been used in the past, early life stages are small and may be in diapause making them very difficult to detect, and numbers of adults during the flight period may not correlate with the number of MCBB present in early life stages. Further, the MCBB may be present in an area and not observed even after repeated visits during appropriate times and conditions (Thompson et al. 2014, Service 2015). Therefore, the MCBB was considered to be declining based on adults being observed in fewer locations than in the past at the time of listing (Service 2013). However, during the 2019 surveys of CHU 1 and CHU 2, more than 350 MCBB were encountered (Thompson 2020). This is the highest number of MCBB observations in a single survey year since 2015 when surveys produced nearly 200 observations, and suggests that the status of the subspecies may be improving at these locations, and that the status of critical habitat overall may be improving in CHU 1 and CHU 2; the most recent survey information also appears to indicate that these populations have high resiliency and reduced extinction risk due to small population size compared with the status of these populations at the time of listing.

The Forest Service and Lee Canyon are working to address stressors to MCBB from invasive grasses, recreation disturbances, erosion, and feral horses to improve habitat for MCBB so that high numbers like those in the 2019 field season become a more frequent occurrence. When ski runs are properly managed as a part of the SMNRA such that stressors from erosion, invasive species, recreation, and feral horses are minimized or alleviated, their site productivity for PCEs for MCBB has the potential to be higher than what might normally exist if succession were allowed to proceed naturally. An increase in the quantity and quality of PCEs situated in the appropriate places on the landscape could increase the numbers and area over which MCBB is distributed. Early studies after the 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire in CHU 1 by Herrmann (2017) suggest that removal of the forest canopy may create opportunities in areas that allow habitat for MCBB to improve or expand by creating openings for host and nectar plants that may emerge from seed banks or disperse from adjacent areas, although future colonization of opened areas by grasses could negatively affect habitat for MCBB. We have no direct evidence that management efforts by the Forest Service and Lee Canyon have resulted in the recent increases we have seen in CHU 2, but these improvements in the status of the MCBB have occurred concurrent with management of the LCSA.

Since we designated critical habitat for MCBB in 2015 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), the Forest Service consulted on and implemented three projects with anticipated impacts to MCBB critical habitat.

The Forest Service authorized and consulted on two erosion repair projects at the Lee Canyon Ski Resort (File Nos. 08ENVS00-2018-F-0021 and 08ENVS00-2019-F-0011) that would impact critical habitat in the Lee Canyon CHU 2. The Forest Service estimated the first project (File No. 08ENVS00-2018-F-0021) would impact a maximum of 0.4 acres (0.16 hectares) of critical habitat. The project resulted in impacts to 0.164 acres (0.066 hectares) of critical habitat, much of which was in an area where ongoing erosion had disturbed and may continue to affect some PCEs without additional erosion control being constructed. The Forest Service estimated the

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 41 second erosion repair project would impact 0.483 acres (0.195 hectares) in the Lee Canyon CHU 2; however, 0 acres were disturbed by project implementation.

The Forest Service estimated the South Loop Trail Post-Fire Restoration Project (File No. 84320-2015-F-0442) would impact a maximum of 10.05 acres (4.07 hectares) in South Loop Critical Habitat Unit 1 (CHU; described in Service 2015). After implementation, the Forest Service reported 8.23 acres (3.33 hectares) of the disturbance was temporary, low severity, and short in duration, and the remaining 1.82 acres (0.74 hectares) of disturbance was in close proximity and coincided with the existing trail. Effects to PCE’s from the project are expected to be short term (1–10 years).

Beyond these actions, we are not aware of any changes in the rangewide condition or threats to critical habitat for the MCBB since its designation. Overall, critical habitat rangewide continues to provide the PCEs as described in designation of critical habitat (Service 2015), and may be improving in CHU 1 and 2 based on recent survey results that have found populations to be much more abundant than in the past.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE Environmental baseline refers to the condition of the listed species or its designated critical habitat in the action area, without the consequences to the listed species or designated critical habitat caused by the proposed action. The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. The consequences to listed species or designated critical habitat from ongoing agency activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the agency’s discretion to modify are part of the environmental baseline.

Status of Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly and Critical Habitat in the Action Area The MCBB and its habitat have been known to occur in and near the action area since 1963 (Austin 1980). All habitat within the action area is critical habitat and approximately 414 acres of critical habitat occurs within the action area. However, as described above, not all designated critical habitat contains the physical or biological features (PCEs) necessary to sustain the species’ life history processes. Of the 414 acres of critical habitat in the action area, an estimated 50.1 acres of critical habitat in the action area contain the PCEs and are thus considered suitable habitat as defined by the Forest Service (Gulley 2018, Westover 2019). This 50.1 acres has been consistent over time such that occupied habitat coincides with these areas, and habitat with the PCEs is found in the same places consistently year after year.

There are four historical populations in the action area: the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs are considered known occupied and are collectively referred to as the Lee Canyon Ski Area; Lower Parking (= Lower LVSSR Parking, Service 2013), Gary Abbott, and Upper Bristlecone Trailhead are presumed occupied locations. Recent surveys in the Lee Canyon Ski Area found MCBB in low numbers in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2018 (Thompson et al. 2014, Thompson 2018a,

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 42

U.S. Forest Service 2016, U.S. Forest Service 2017). In 2019, however, over 100 MCBB were observed from 6 separate visits to the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs. A third ski run, known as the Line, also contained over 30 MCBB when surveyed in 2019. The Line ski run is approximately 100 meters east of the Bimbo ski run. In total, over 150 MCBB were observed in the Lee Canyon Ski Area in 2019 (Thompson 2020). The ski runs in the LCSA contain some of the highest quality patches of suitable habitat found in the Spring Mountains.

Of the presumed occupied locations in the action area, one was surveyed in 2019 and found to have MCBB. MCBB were identified during surveys at Upper Bristlecone Trailhead for the first time since 1995. Of the other 2 presumed occupied locations, MCBB were found at Gary Abbott in 2017; Lower Parking has not had recent MCBB observations, but does contain suitable habitat. Although MCBB have only been documented in 1995 and 2017, Gary Abbot continues to support high densities of host and nectar plants and could serve as a corridor between Bonanza Trail and the Lee Canyon Ski Area, the 2 populations with the most observations in 2019. Habitat quality in Lower Parking has been diminished in recent years. Thompson estimated that approximately 20-25 percent of the Lower Parking habitat was lost due to tree thinning and wood chipping sometime between 2012 and 2015 (Thompson 2018a). However, Lower Parking is surrounded by known and presumed occupied locations and could serve as a corridor between larger, sustainable habitats. Overall, MCBB and its critical habitat appear to be improving in the action area, and this improvement has occurred concurrently with management efforts on the part of the Forest Service and Lee Canyon to create MCBB habitat within the LCSA.

Surveys for the butterfly within the LCSA have focused on visiting the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs, with other locations within the LCSA receiving much less survey effort. The location, extent, and frequency of surveys and studies within the LCSA have varied (Austin 1980, Weiss et al. 1997, Andrew et al. 2013, Thompson et al. 2014, US Forest Service 2017, Thompson 2018a) over time, and this has caused our understanding of documented locations of the MCBB and its habitat within the LCSA to also vary over time. Thus when considering absence or extirpation at any one location, the variation in survey effort must be considered.

Within the LCSA, the MCBB has been incidentally observed outside the main surveyed areas of the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs. In 2016, the MCBB was detected in areas at the top of Blackjack ski run (US Forest Service 2016) approximately 150 meters upslope from any of the nearest areas of habitat which were delineated (Andrew et al. 2013) and 30–50 m from cells depicted as habitat in Figure 10 of the BA (Westover 2019). In 2019 the Line ski run had over 30 MCBB observations. In 2017 a MCBB was observed next to the west side of the road going up The Strip ski run (US Forest Service 2017), approximately 75 meters from habitat in the Bimbo ski run. However, in 2013 there was 0.04 ac of habitat mapped in this area for the LVSSR Chair 2 Replacement Project (File No. 84320-2013-I-0281 and 84320-2013-FC-0281). This further illustrates that MCBB and suitable MCBB habitat occur outside of the historical locations and also indicate that MCBB move between habitat patches in the LCSA.

The BA used more recent field surveys (Cirrus Ecological Solutions 2017) for analysis to estimate the quantity and distribution of habitat that would be affected by the proposed action as depicted in Figure 9 (Westover 2019). The Forest Service estimated that approximately 50.1

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 43

acres of habitat, all of which is critical habitat, provides the PCEs as described in the designation of critical habitat (Service 2015) and is thus considered suitable habitat. The distribution of habitat mapped by Cirrus Ecological Solutions (2017) is closely aligned and coincided with earlier area mapped by Andrew et al. (2013). The estimated distribution of habitat is concentrated around Blackjack and Bimbo ski runs (Lee Canyon ski area location), north of Chair 8 (Gary Abbott location), north of the Bristlecone Trail and west of the base area (Upper Bristlecone Trailhead location).

Factors Affecting Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly and Critical Habitat in the Action Area Within CHU 2 and the action area, MCBB and its habitat are threatened by loss and degradation of habitat due to changes in natural fire regimes and succession; implementation of recreational development projects and fuels reduction projects; increases of nonnative plants; and the exacerbation of other threats from the impacts of climate change, which is anticipated to increase drought and extreme precipitation events (Service 2015).

Factors affecting the MCBB and critical habitat in the action area include all actions previously consulted on by the Forest Service. The precise number of MCBB killed or injured as a result of the projects or actions covered under previously issued biological opinions is unknown, mostly due to the difficulty in observing and locating Mount Charleston blue butterflies, particularly those life stages prior to adult. For these reasons, the Service has consistently relied upon habitat disturbance as a surrogate for estimating take.

As we explained in the Status of the Species section, the Forest Service authorized and consulted on two erosion repair projects at the Lee Canyon Ski Resort (File Nos. 08ENVS00-2018-F-0021 and 08ENVS00-2019-F-0011) that would impact critical habitat in the Lee Canyon CHU 2. The Forest Service estimated the first project (File No. 08ENVS00-2018-F-0021) would impact a maximum of 0.4 acre (0.16 hectare) of critical habitat. The project resulted in impacts to 0.164 acre (0.066 hectare) of critical habitat. The Forest Service estimated the second erosion repair project would impact 0.483 acre (0.195 hectare) in CHU 2; however, 0 ac were disturbed by project implementation. Both of these projects illustrate that the conservative methods that the Forest Service uses to estimate impacts of its actions on MCBB habitat tend to overestimate actual impacts when the project is implemented.

Overall the critical habitat in the action area in CHU 2 continues to provide the PCEs as described in the designation of critical habitat (Service 2015). As described above in the Status of the Species section, the status of MCBB and MCBB critical habitat appears to be improving in the action area in CHU 2. Although this improvement cannot be directly attributed to management of the LCSA, this improvement has happened concurrently with ongoing operations and management of the LCSA. The Service has known for some time that the periodic maintenance (removal of trees and shrubs) of the ski runs at LCSA effectively arrests forest succession on the ski slopes and serves to maintain conditions favorable to MCBB, and to its host and nectar plants (Service 2012).

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 44

Figure 9. Estimated extent and distribution of Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat within the Lee Canyon Ski Area Special Use permit area (Updated BA Figure 10 personal communication with M. Westover September 30, 2019). Some areas of this map currently depicted as habitat may not be habitat because of high tree canopy cover or tall grasses. The colored cells indicate suitable habitat with the amount of suitable habitat in each cell indicated by color from green (low) to red (high). Also shown are the historical MCBB locations within the LCSA (circled), as well as the three areas of core habitat (concentrations of red cells) Gary Abbott, Bimbo, and Blackjack) and areas of non-core habitat (all other colored cells).

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 45

The updated Endangered Species Act regulations (84 FR 44976) combine effects into “all effects.” Even though we discuss direct and indirect effects, this biological opinion complies with the new regulations.

General Effects Analysis Direct effects on MCBB adults, larvae, pupae, or eggs are difficult to quantify because this species is cryptic in all but its adult form. Although past surveys have detected adults in the action area, surveys to accurately identify areas occupied by larvae, pupae or eggs are not practical at the scale of the LCSA. In order to address this difficulty, and as an attempt to quantify direct effects on individual MCBBs, the Forest Service quantified effects on suitable habitat (i.e., critical habitat which contains the PCEs) to use as a proxy for effects on individuals. In our analysis of effects, we have accepted and utilized the Forest Service analysis of effects in its BA (Westover 2019). Because the Forest Service effectively quantifies both the amount and relative quality of MCBB habitat (all of which is critical habitat) that will be effected, and how it will be affected, by the proposed action, this results in a very focused analysis of effects to MCBB and its critical habitat. This is important because, as explained above, not all MCBB habitat in the action area (all of which is critical habitat) provides the PCEs to support MCBB, and even areas of suitable habitat (habitat that does contain the PCEs) differ in terms of quality. Although MCBB habitat occurs throughout the action area as critical habitat, a much smaller subset of habitat actually provides the PCEs to support the butterfly. Habitat that provides the PCEs is referred to as suitable habitat, and adverse effects to the MCBB from the proposed action have been quantified in terms of acres of suitable habitat affected rather than the number of adults, larvae, pupae, or eggs affected. In addition to suitable habitat are areas of critical habitat that do not contain the PCEs to support MCBB and are thus not considered suitable habitat. However, these areas do provide connectivity between patches of suitable habitat. MCBB disperse through these areas to move between patches of suitable habitat. For this reason, we refer to these areas as dispersal habitat. Together, suitable habitat, along with the dispersal habitat, make up all MCBB habitat in the action area.

As explained further below, all dispersal habitat in the action area is expected to continue to serve as dispersal habitat for MCBB, is not expected to be adversely affected, and could in fact be beneficially affected. Also, eggs, larvae, and pupae do not occur in MCBB dispersal habitat, and movement of adult MCBB through dispersal habitat is a rare occurrence, so disturbance effects to adult MCBB from the proposed action in dispersal habitat is also unlikely. Thus the focus of our effects analysis is on suitable habitat, and dispersal habitat is not considered in our analysis of take.

Direct and indirect effects in this analysis are those affecting habitat, using suitable habitat as a proxy for individuals, as described above. The methodology for determining acreage of habitat affected is described in the BA on page 45 (Westover 2019), and important definitions used in the analysis from the BA are also provided here:

• Habitat disturbance: Activities taking place within, or adjacent to, suitable habitat that does not result in the loss of host or nectar plants in the area, but may disturb adult

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 46

MCBB. An example would be a vehicle driving on a road adjacent to suitable habitat during the adult flight period (i.e. the vehicle could disturb adult MCBB). • Habitat removal: Activities taking place within suitable habitat (which is also critical habitat that contains the PCEs) that result in the removal of host or nectar plants. An example would be the grading of an area of suitable habitat for the construction of a ski run. Even though topsoil would be replaced following implementation of this action, and MCBB habitat may regrow in the area, the immediate effect would be the removal of habitat. • Core areas: The contiguous patches of habitat on the Blackjack and Bimbo ski runs as well as the patch at the Gary Abbott site. Methodologically, core areas are comprised of contiguous cells in these areas with more than 312.5 square meters of potential habitat (prior to the application of the 5-meter buffer around habitat), and any single cell with potential habitat lower than that threshold that provides the only connection between two cells with more potential habitat than that threshold. There are a total of 11.5 acres of core area habitat at the ski area using this method.3 • Non-core areas: Habitat patches of suitable habitat (critical habitat that contains the PCEs) outside of the three core areas. Core habitat includes areas of contiguous cells greater than 0.08 acres (312.5 m2) in the Gary Abbott, Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs (Figure 9). Non-core habitat is also associated with the MCBB locations of Upper Bristlecone Trailhead and Lower Parking. Core areas have a higher density of host and nectar plants across a broader area with lower tree canopy cover, but the primary distinction from non-core areas are that these are large contiguous patches of suitable critical habitat (habitat that contains the PCEs). Non-core areas are areas of habitat outside the core areas. Non-core areas generally have lower host and nectar plant densities as well as higher tree canopy cover, and do not meet the definition of core areas (areas of contiguous cells greater than 0.08 ac, 312.5 m2), although they do still contain the PCEs and are thus considered suitable habitat. The Forest Service identified core and non-core areas to identify all critical habitat that has the PCEs to support the butterfly because this is the most important habitat in the action area consistently year after year and is associated with known and presumed occupied locations. The Forest Service identified the core and non-core areas in an effort to identify the most important MCBB critical habitat in the action area to facilitate the highest degree of functional and effective measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the butterflies.

In addition to the core and non-core areas are areas of critical habitat that do not contain the PCEs to support MCBB and are thus not considered suitable habitat. However, these areas do provide connectivity between the patches of suitable habitat. MCBB disperse through these areas to move between patches of suitable habitat. For this reason, we refer to these areas as dispersal

3 Although not defined as such in the Forest Service BA, core areas are also areas of the densest concentrations of MCBB host and nectar plants, and so represent areas of the highest quality MCBB habitat in the LCSA (red cells in Figure 9).

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 47

habitat. Together, the core and non-core areas (suitable habitat), along with the dispersal habitat, make up all MCBB habitat in the action area (all of which is critical habitat).

Based on these criteria, it is estimated that the Lee Canyon Critical Habitat Unit (CHU 2) contains approximately 144.94 acres of habitat with PCEs (suitable habitat) for the MCBB (Gully 2018). Of these 144.9 acres, approximately 50.1 acres of suitable habitat occurs within the action area which accounts for approximately 35 percent of the available suitable habitat in the Lee Canyon Critical Habitat Unit. Suitable habitat located in the action area represents approximately 2.6 percent of the 1,921 acres of suitable habitat that is estimated to occur within all three critical habitat units (Gully 2018). Of all MCBB habitat in the action area (all of which is critical habitat) there are: 414 acres of critical habitat, 269.1 acres of dispersal habitat, and 144.9 acres of suitable habitat. Of the 144.9 acres of suitable habitat in CHU 2, 50.1 acres are estimated to occur in the action area, 38.6 acres of non-core, and 11.5 acres of core habitat.

It should be noted that the acreage in the action area and the acreage within the Lee Canyon Critical Habitat Unit were calculated using differing methodologies. According to the methodology used to calculate the overall suitable habitat in the CHU (along with the other CHUs), the action area contains 42.7 acres of habitat or 29 percent of the 144.9 acres of suitable habitat in CHU 2 and 2 percent of the habitat across all CHUs. For our analysis, all impact acreages have been calculated using the methodology in section 7.1.1.4 of the Forest Service BA and are directly comparable to the 50.1 acre figure. Although these are different methodologies, they can sufficiently be compared with each other to determine a relative scale of effects, and because the Forest Service analysis results in the higher number (50.1 acres), it provides a more conservative estimate of impacts relative to the CHU and critical habitat rangewide because the Forest Service estimate results in a larger proportion of suitable habitat in the action area relative to the CHU, and the impact analysis uses the same methodology; thus impacts will be overestimated when expressed in terms of a percentage of habitat within the CHU or rangewide.

The effects described below have also been overestimated in a temporal way. The proposed action is planned to be implemented over a 10-year period. Many of the effects below, particularly those due to construction of new infrastructure, will not take place at the same time. This is important because much of the effects below identified as habitat removal, although they may result in the loss of habitat during construction, will also potentially recover and provide MCBB habitat in the future. When also considering that not all elements of construction will happen at the same time, it is possible that some elements that result in habitat removal are likely to return to MCBB habitat in future years when new elements are being constructed. Because of this, the overall estimate of habitat loss from habitat removal is an overestimate and that level of loss is unlikely to ever be fully realized as elements are constructed and recover into the future as other elements are being constructed.

4 There was an error in the Forest Service calculation of suitable habitat in CHU 2 using the BA methodology; the number reported in the BA was 172 acres, but the correct number is 144.9.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 48

Effects of Construction of New Infrastructure

In general, in the Forest Service analysis in the BA (Westover 2019) and in our analysis here, impacts to suitable habitat (habitat that contains the PCEs and has been defined as either core or non-core) is an overestimate and represents an upper limit or maximum amount of habitat that could be affected. More specifically, the 1.2 and 11.7 acres of habitat noted under “Core Area Removal” and “Non-Core Removal” in Table 2 would not be completely removed as a result of the construction of new infrastructure. As explained in the Forest Service BA, an example is a patch of suitable habitat within an area proposed for ski run grading may be completely removed by the shaping of terrain for appropriate ski run fall lines, or it could be avoided entirely, depending on how suitable the slope and fall lines are currently. Minimization measure 9 requires that areas of suitable habitat be avoided in situations like this, where practical, but avoidance will not always be possible. Similarly “Core Area Disturbance” and “Non-Core Disturbance” in Table 2 are estimates of the upper limits of potential impacts. As explained above, per minimization measure 9, the Forest Service will attempt to limit the amount of habitat disturbance in all cases. Effects to the MCBB and its habitat from construction of new infrastructure will be similar for all elements of construction except where noted. Effects to the MCBB and its habitat will occur from surface and vegetation disturbance by crews and equipment resulting in habitat removal. All eggs, larvae, and pupae present in the removal portion of the action area will be injured, crushed, buried, and killed. For core and non-core areas of disturbance, adults during the flight period between June and September will be displaced and could be killed. As explained above, core and non-core areas are MCBB critical habitat that is also suitable habitat because it contains the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Areas outside of the core and non-core areas may be critical habitat but do not contain, and have not contained historically, the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Effects of the action are quantified in terms of habitat disturbed because it is not possible to estimate the number of individual MCBB that occupy the action area as eggs, larvae, or adults.

Table 2. Acres of suitable MCBB habitat impacted by the construction of the proposed infrastructure.

Core Area Core Area Non-Core Non-Core Element Total Disturbance Removal Disturbance Removal Construction Access Routes 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 1.2 Lift 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chair 5 Pod 0.2 0.9 0.5 3.9 5.5 Chair 8 Pod <0.1 0.0 0.7 6.0 6.7 Glading 0.5 0.0 b 0.3 0.0 b 0.8 Snowmaking 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.9 Mountain Coaster 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.3

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 49

Mountain Bike Trails 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a Hiking Trail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 a Zip Line 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 Equipment Rental/Food & 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beverage Building First Aid/Ski Patrol Building 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vault Toilet 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 New Parking Lot 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 Gate House 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.1 0.1 Water Tank 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.9 1.2 3.3 11.7 17.4 a Mountain biking and hiking trails are conceptual. Final trails would comply with design criterion 11 and construction of these trails would result in no impacts on MCBB habitat. b Glading would comply with design criterion 35 and would result in no habitat removal.

Construction Access Routes Most access routes for construction of proposed infrastructure are shared and are preexisting dirt roads. The Forest Service estimates that, although it is unlikely that any habitat removal would be associated with the construction of access routes since all are existing mountain access roads that are maintained as dirt/gravel surfaces, the acreage in Table 2 is included out of an abundance of caution, in the event host and nectar plants grow into the access roads in between maintenance occurrences.

Lift 4 The Forest Service has stated that design criteria will eliminate any habitat disturbance or removal of any suitable MCBB habitat resulting from the construction of Lift 4, because none of the ground disturbance for this element overlaps any existing suitable MCBB habitat.

Chair 5 Pod The construction of the Chair 5 pod would result in removal and disturbance of MCBB core and non-core habitat (Table 2) in the vicinity of the Blackjack core area. Impacts would be associated with grading, excavation, tree clearing, and human presence during construction, for a total of 4.8 acres of removal and 0.7 acres of disturbance.

Chair 8 Pod The construction of the Chair 8 pod would result in a very small amount of disturbance of the Bimbo core area due to ski run construction activities taking place nearby. Non-core disturbance and removal would also occur, as noted in Table 2. Impacts would be associated with grading, excavation, tree clearing, and human presence during construction.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 50

Much of the area identified as suitable habitat in the Chair 8 pod is likely not suitable due to high canopy cover exceeding levels described in PCE 1. The estimate of removal and disturbance also assumes all of the ski run acreage associated with this pod would be graded and so is an upper limit and likely would be less than estimated.

Tree and Glade Skiing The selective removal of trees associated with this element would result in no habitat removal (per minimization measure 40) and a small amount of core and non-core disturbance. The Forest Service selected areas to be gladed due to their proximity to existing MCBB habitat and the potential for habitat expansion and connectivity improvements resulting from a reduction of limiting tree cover. The PCEs for MCBB critical habitat cannot develop if tree cover is too dense. So although adverse effects on core and non-core suitable habitat would occur, as noted in Table 2, associated with the felling and removal of trees as well as the human presence during construction, much of the area identified as suitable habitat in the glading area is likely not actually suitable due to high canopy cover exceeding levels described in PCE 1. This element of the proposed action is expected to be beneficial for MCBB. Removing tree canopy cover should improve habitat such that the PCEs can develop for suitable habitat. The Forest Service estimates that approximately 90.3 acres of habitat could be improved in this way.

Snowmaking Snowmaking construction consists of the installation of snowmaking lines and hydrants which would result in a very small amount of disturbance of the Blackjack core area due to the extension of the core area into the trees in the Pod 5 area. Non-core disturbance and removal would also occur, as noted in Table 2 as a result of excavation and human presence during construction. Because snowmaking lines are linear and flexible, the Forest Service estimates that much of the suitable habitat in the area can be avoided, and thus the estimates of disturbance and removal are an upper limit.

Mountain Coaster Installation of the mountain coaster would result in a small amount of disturbance of the Blackjack core area due to the extension of the core area into the trees in the Pod 5 area. Non- core disturbance and removal would also occur, as noted in Table 2, as a result of excavation and human presence during construction. The Forest Service estimates that suitable habitat in the vicinity of the mountain coaster is likely not actually suitable due to high canopy cover exceeding levels described in PCE 1.

Mountain Bike Trails and Hiking Trail The construction of the mountain bike trails and hiking trail would result in no impacts on any core or non-core habitat because minimization measure 16 requires mountain bike trails to be outside suitable habitat, and will include a 5-meter buffer around host and nectar plants.

Zip Line The construction of the zip line would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 2, near the Blackjack area of the Lee Canyon Ski Area population. Impacts would be associated with tree removal in

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 51 the zip line corridor, excavation at the terminals, and human presence during construction. The zip line will be constructed in an area of high tree canopy density, thus much of the area is likely not suitable habitat.

Equipment Rental/Food & Beverage Building and First Aid/Ski Patrol Building Construction of the Equipment Rental/Food & Beverage and First Aid/Ski Patrol buildings would result in no disturbance or removal of any suitable MCBB habitat.

Vault Toilet Facility at Overflow Parking Lot The construction of the vault toilet facility would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 2, in the vicinity of the Lower Parking population location. Impacts would be associated with the felling and removal of one or possibly two trees, excavation of the vault, and human presence during construction.

New Parking Lot The construction of the new parking lot would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 2, in the vicinity of the Lower Parking population location. Non-core area disturbance and removal would be caused by construction (grading and paving) of the new access road to the parking lot.

Gate House The gate house will be constructed in the middle of the existing paved entrance road to the LCSA and would result in no core area disturbance or removal and is projected to result in a very small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 2. Because construction is on an already paved road, habitat disturbance would be limited to the margins of the road due to human presence during construction, and habitat removal would be minimal on the road margins if it occurs at all.

Water Tank The water tank would not result in any removal or disturbance to suitable MCBB habitat.

Effects of Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure Table 3 lists the acreage of habitat disturbance and removal associated with maintenance of existing infrastructure for the project. The Forest Service has stated that much of the 0.2 and 1.0 acres of habitat noted under “Core Area Removal” and “Non-Core Removal”, respectively, in Table 3 would not be completely removed. Minimization measure 9 requires that areas of suitable habitat be avoided, where practical, but avoidance will not always be possible. Similarly, the total of 1.2 acres in Table 3 should be viewed as an upper limit. “Core Area Disturbance” and “Non-Core Disturbance” is also an upper limit because minimization measure 9 will force impacts away from suitable habitat.

Effects to the MCBB and its habitat from maintenance of existing infrastructure will be the same for all specific activities described below except where noted. Effects to the MCBB and its habitat will occur from surface and vegetation disturbance by crews and equipment resulting in

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 52 habitat removal. All eggs, larvae, and pupae present in the removal portion of the action area will be injured, crushed, buried, and killed. For core and non-core areas of disturbance, adults during the flight period between June and September will be displaced and could be killed. As explained above, core and non-core areas are MCBB critical habitat that is also suitable habitat because it contains the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Areas outside of the core and non-core areas may be critical habitat but do not, and have not historically, the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Effects of the action are quantified in terms of habitat disturbed because it is not possible to estimate the number of individual MCBB that occupy the action area as eggs, larvae, or adults.

Table 3. Acres of suitable MCBB habitat impacted by the maintenance of the existing infrastructure.

Core Area Non-Core Element Core Area Removal Non-Core Removal Total Disturbance Disturbance Roads 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.9 Ski Runs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lifts 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Snowmaking 0.2 < 0.1 0.7 0.2 1.1 Structures 0.0 0.0 < 0.1 0.0 < 0.1 Landscaping 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vegetation 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.6 Clearing Weed Control 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Erosion 2.4 0.2 1.9 0.2 4.7 Management Parking Lots 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 Disc Golf 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Total 4.2 0.2 6.0 1.0 11.4

Roads The maintenance of the existing mountain road network would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 3. Impacts would be associated with the repair of erosion control features and grading of the roads pushing dirt onto adjacent habitat.

Ski Runs Beyond erosion and vegetation clearing, no other maintenance for ski runs is required. No removal or disturbance of MCBB habitat would occur solely as a result of maintenance of the existing ski runs.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 53

Lifts The maintenance of the existing ski lifts would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 3. Impacts would be associated with personnel and equipment accessing the lift corridor adjacent to suitable habitat.

Snowmaking The maintenance of the existing snowmaking system would result in a small amount of core area disturbance and removal as well as a small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 3. Impacts would be associated with travel along the snowmaking lines and excavation for periodic repair and replacement of lines and hydrants.

Structures The maintenance of the existing structures would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 3. Impacts would be associated with personnel accessing the small structure near the snowmaking pond, adjacent to suitable habitat.

Landscaping Landscaping maintenance would result in no removal or disturbance of any core or non-core suitable habitat.

Vegetation Clearing Vegetation clearing maintenance operations for existing infrastructure would result in no habitat removal and a relatively large amount of core and non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 3. Impacts would be associated with personnel accessing areas with encroaching forest vegetation. Although the acreage is relatively high, this disturbance would occur in a very dispersed manner, with only a small strip of disturbance occurring in any particular area, as a ski area employee walked through the area clipping small trees as they went. This element would have the beneficial effect of facilitating the long-term preservation of areas of suitable habitat that would otherwise be shaded out by encroaching forest vegetation over time.

Weed Control Control of the existing weed infestations would result in no habitat removal and a very small amount of non-core disturbance, as noted in Table 3. Impacts would be associated with the treatment of existing weed patches adjacent to suitable habitat. This element would have the beneficial effect of facilitating the long-term preservation of areas of suitable MCBB habitat that could be overrun with weeds over time.

Erosion Management The largest impact of the maintenance of existing ski area infrastructure would be associated with erosion management. As noted in Table 3, a small amount of habitat removal and a relatively large amount of habitat disturbance would occur as a result of this maintenance. Impacts would be associated with the construction and maintenance of water bars on ski runs, some of which would go through existing suitable habitat.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 54

Currently the core areas are some of the areas least prone to erosion. However, the potential exists for catastrophic damage to these areas as a result of future storm events. Furthermore, expansion of these areas is limited by the erosion occurring around them. The installation and maintenance of erosion controls on the existing ski runs would have the beneficial effect to MCBB of minimizing the potential for core area habitat loss and making habitat expansion on existing runs more likely.

Parking Lots The maintenance of the existing parking lots would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 3. The Forest Service has stated that it is unlikely that any habitat occurs in the paved or unpaved parking areas and adverse effects would be limited to disturbance of adjacent habitat during resurfacing activities. The acreage in Table 3 is a conservative estimate to account for the possibility of disturbance and removal (i.e., in the event host or nectar plants grow into the parking areas in between maintenance occurrences).

Disc Golf The maintenance of the existing disc golf course would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 3. Adverse effects could occur as a result of trail work adjacent to suitable habitat.

Maintenance of Proposed Infrastructure Table 4 outlines the acreage of habitat disturbance and removal associated with maintenance of proposed infrastructure. The 9 acres of disturbance and removal noted in Table 4 are completely within the 17.4 acres of habitat described as disturbed and removed during construction of the proposed infrastructure (Table 1 and 2). Therefore, the acreage noted in Table 4 should not be considered as cumulative with the acreage in Table 2. Some habitat would likely remain in the areas described as disturbed or removed by construction of the proposed infrastructure due to the requirements of design criterion 4, and that habitat could be disturbed again or removed by maintenance, as described below. For any habitat that is remaining, the same avoidance and minimization measures would apply during maintenance. Therefore, the acreages noted in Table 4 should be viewed as an upper limit rather than an estimate of actual adverse effects.

Table 4. Acres of suitable MCBB habitat impacted by the maintenance of the proposed infrastructure.

Core Area Core Area Non-Core Non-Core Element Total Disturbance Removal Disturbance Removal Roads 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 Ski Runs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lifts 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 Snowmaking < 0.1 < 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.4

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 55

Structures < 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Landscaping 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vegetation 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Clearing Weed Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Erosion 0.3 < 0.1 3.9 0.4 4.6 Management Parking Lots 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Hiking and 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Biking Trails Mountain 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 Coaster Zip Line 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Total 1.0 < 0.1 7.2 0.8 9.0

Roads The maintenance of the proposed road additions to the existing mountain road network would result in a very small amount of core area disturbance and removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 4. Impacts would be associated with the repair of erosion control features and grading of the roads pushing dirt onto adjacent habitat.

Ski Runs Beyond erosion and vegetation clearing, no other maintenance for proposed ski runs is required. No removal or disturbance of MCBB habitat would occur solely as a result of maintenance of the proposed ski runs.

Lifts The maintenance of the proposed ski lifts would result in a very small amount of core area disturbance, no removal, and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 4. Impacts would be associated with personnel and equipment accessing the lift corridor adjacent to suitable habitat.

Snowmaking The maintenance of the proposed additions to the existing snowmaking system would result in a very small amount of core area disturbance and removal as well as a small amount of non-core area disturbance and removal, as noted in Table 4. Impacts would be associated with travel along the snowmaking lines and excavation for periodic repair and replacement of lines and hydrants.

Structures The maintenance of the proposed structures would result in a very small amount of core area disturbance, no removal, and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 56

4. Impacts would be associated with personnel accessing the snowmaking pumphouse, adjacent to suitable habitat.

Landscaping Landscaping maintenance would result in no removal or disturbance of any core or non-core suitable habitat.

Vegetation Management Vegetation clearing maintenance for proposed infrastructure would result in no habitat removal and a small amount of core and non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 4. Impacts would be associated with personnel accessing areas with encroaching forest vegetation. This disturbance would occur in a very dispersed manner, with only a small strip of disturbance occurring in any particular area, as a ski area employee walked through the area clipping small trees as they went. This element would have the beneficial effect of facilitating the long-term preservation of areas of suitable habitat that would otherwise be shaded out by encroaching forest vegetation over time.

Weed Control At this time there are no known weed infestations in the locations of the proposed infrastructure. If any weeds were to grow into these areas, they would be eradicated.

Erosion Management The largest impact of the maintenance of proposed ski area infrastructure would be associated with erosion management. As noted in Table 4, a small amount of habitat removal and a relatively large amount of habitat disturbance would occur as a result of this maintenance. Impacts would be associated with the construction and maintenance of water bars on ski runs, some of which would go through existing suitable habitat. Erosion management activities in these areas would create a stable environment in which host and nectar plants could continue to grow and potentially expand in the absence. Erosion maintenance is anticipated to be an overall beneficial effect to MCBB because erosion management will help preserve MBCC core and non- core habitat.

Parking Areas The maintenance of the proposed parking lot would result in no core area disturbance or removal and a very small amount of non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 4. These impacts would be associated with disturbance of adjacent habitat during resurfacing activities.

Hiking and Biking Trails The maintenance of the hiking and biking trails would result in no impacts on any core or non- core habitat. While it is currently unknown where the final mountain biking and hiking trails will be, minimization measure 16 requires them to be outside suitable habitat, including a 5-meter buffer around patches of host and nectar plants, thereby precluding any disturbance or removal of suitable habitat due to maintenance.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 57

Mountain Coaster Maintenance of the mountain coaster would result in no habitat removal and a small amount of core and non-core area disturbance, as noted in Table 4. Impacts would be associated with personnel accessing the mountain coaster corridor to remove encroaching forest vegetation and inspect or repair the track.

Zip Line Maintenance of the zip line would result in no habitat removal and a small amount of non-core disturbance, as noted in Table 4. Impacts would be associated with personnel accessing the zip line corridor to remove encroaching forest vegetation.

Existing Ski Area Operations

Table 5 below outlines the acreage of habitat disturbance and removal associated with existing ski area operations. Effects to the MCBB and its habitat from existing ski area operations will be the same for all specific activities described below except where noted. There will be no habitat removal associated with existing ski area operations. Core and non-core area disturbance would occur, and adults during the flight period between June and September could be displaced and could also be killed. As explained above, core and non-core areas are MCBB critical habitat that is also suitable habitat because it contains the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Areas outside of the core and non-core areas may be critical habitat but do not, and have not historically, the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Effects of the action are quantified in terms of habitat disturbed because it is not possible to estimate the number of individual MCBB that occupy the action area as eggs, larvae, or adults. Table 5. Acres of suitable MCBB habitat impacted by existing ski area operations.

Core Area Core Area Non-Core Non-Core Element Total Disturbance Removal Disturbance Removal

Snowmaking 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.6

Skiing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ski Run 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grooming

Lift Rides 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Disc Golf <0.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3

Hiking 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Litter Cleanup 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Snow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Removal

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 58

Fuel and Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chemicals

Total 0.2 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.9

Snowmaking Existing snowmaking operations would result in a small amount of core and non-core disturbance, as noted in Table 5. However, snowmaking operations begin in the late fall, after the flight period has ended, and therefore have minimal disturbance related effects. Impacts would be associated with personnel access along the snowmaking lines, laying hoses and cables on the ground, and pushing snow from place to place. Man-made snow would be distributed to varying extents over all existing ski runs, based on conditions year-to-year. This has been the case since at least 1986 when the snowmaking system was installed and has contributed to the existing habitat conditions at the ski area. No effects related to the distribution of snow relative to current conditions are anticipated. Variation in snow cover is known to delay or advance the emergence date of larvae and adults and to influence larval growth and survival (Thompson et al. 2014), and some information that changes in microclimate, and more specifically, temperature, may cause increased mortality due to changes in the synchronization of larval emergence and host plant availability (CaraDonna et al. 2018). Although there is no direct evidence to suggest that snowmaking has benefitted MCBB (i.e. concentrations of habitat and adults are not correlated directly with areas of increased watering as result of snowmaking), the large numbers of adults found in the action area in 2015 and 2019 suggest that conditions are improving for MCBB in the action area.

Skiing Skiing operations would have no impact on any core or non-core habitat due to minimization measure 19 preventing skiing in areas where suitable habitat has insufficient snow cover.

Ski Run Grooming Ski run grooming operations would have no impact on any core or non-core habitat due to minimization measure 20 preventing grooming operations in areas where suitable habitat has insufficient snow cover.

Lift Rides Lift ride operations are an area where uncertainty currently exists as to what areas could be impacted by these operations. The typical lift ride has no impact on any suitable habitat. However, occasionally riders choose to walk down from the top of the lift instead of taking the lift back down. This is strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons but currently members of the public cannot be prohibited from walking down on public lands. Riders who do choose to walk down have the potential to disturb both core and non-core habitat, depending on where they go. There is no established hiking trail down from the top of Chair 1.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 59

Disc Golf Existing disc golf operations would result in a very small amount of core area disturbance and a relatively large amount of non-core disturbance. The exact disturbance area of existing disc golf operations is somewhat uncertain since not all players have the skill to play from the tee box to the hole in a straight line. Based on observations by ski area personnel, a 200-foot-wide corridor between the tee box and the hole captures most players. For this analysis, the 200-foot-wide corridor was buffered by 5 meters to determine the area that would likely be disturbed by players. Impacts would be associated with players walking from one place to another and with the impact of discs on the ground.

Hiking The existing on-trail hiking operations would result in no impacts on core or non-core habitats. However, unsanctioned off-trail hiking at the ski area does occur and the impacts of that activity hiking. As explained below, the proposed action would include monitors to keep hikers on established trails to minimize the potential for hikers to adversely affect MCBB.

Litter Clean-up It is currently uncertain where litter clean-up routes would go. However, design criterion 16 prohibits routes that traverse suitable habitat, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts associated with this activity. areas of suitable habitat. Design criterion 18 also eliminates the potential for ice melting products to impact suitable habitat adjacent to roads or parking lots. is uncertain; there is the potential for hikers to disturb adult MCBB or trample habitat resulting in injury or death to MCBB. Currently members of the public cannot be prohibited from off-trail

Snow Removal Snow removal operations would have no impact on any core or non-core habitat due to minimization measure 22 preventing snow from being moved from roads or parking areas into

Fuel and Other Chemicals Existing operations involving the use of fuel or other chemicals would impact no core or non- core habitat.

Proposed Ski Area Operations Table 6 outlines the acreage of habitat disturbance and removal associated with proposed ski area operations. Effects to the MCBB and its habitat from proposed ski area operations will be the same for all specific activities described below except where noted. There will be no habitat removal associated with proposed ski area operations. Core and non-core area disturbance would occur, and adults during the flight period between June and September could be displaced and could also be killed. As explained above, core and non-core areas are MCBB critical habitat that is also suitable habitat because it contains the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Areas outside of the core and non-core areas may be critical habitat but do not, and have not historically, the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Effects of the action are quantified in terms of habitat

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 60

disturbed because it is not possible to estimate the number of individual MCBB that occupy the action area as eggs, larvae, or adults.

Table 6. Acres of suitable MCBB habitat impacted by the proposed ski area operations.

Core Area Core Area Non-Core Non-Core Element Total Disturbance Removal Disturbance Removal Snowmaking 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.8 Skiing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ski Run 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grooming Lift Rides 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hiking 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Litter Cleanup 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Snow Removal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fuel and Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chemicals Mountain 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 Coaster Mountain < 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 Biking Zip Line 0.0 0.0 < 0.1 0.0 < 0.1 Total 0.4 0.0 3.9 0.0 4.3

Snowmaking Proposed snowmaking operations would result in a small amount of core and non-core disturbance, as noted in Table 6. However, snowmaking operations begin in the late fall, after the flight period has ended, and therefore have minimal disturbance related impacts. Impacts would be associated with personnel access along the snowmaking lines, laying hoses and cables on the ground, and pushing snow from place to place.

Man-made snow would continue to be distributed to varying extents over all existing and proposed ski runs, based on conditions year-to-year. With a somewhat fixed amount of water available for snowmaking (the volume of the snowmaking pond plus whatever can be pumped from existing wells), it is likely that the existing ski runs would see a reduction in the amount of man-made snow that is distributed over them. There is no literature available describing the effects of supplemental water on the plants that make up suitable habitat. However, there are some parts of the ski area that routinely get substantially more man-made snow than other areas,

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 61

namely The Strip ski run where the snow-built terrain park is located. While parts of The Strip contain suitable habitat, there is no apparent pattern of higher or lower host or nectar plant density in these areas that regularly get substantially more man-made snow than other areas. The Strip does not contain core area quality MCBB habitat but neither do other ski runs, such as Keno, that do not receive the same elevated levels of man-made snow as The Strip. One conclusion that could be drawn is that other (unknown) factors are making a bigger difference in where suitable habitat occurs than snowmaking water distribution. This kind of observational data seems to indicate that slightly decreasing the amount of snowmaking water that is distributed over the existing ski runs and adding some snowmaking water to pods 5 and 8 are unlikely to have detectable impacts on MCBB habitats in these areas.

As discussed above, variation in snow cover is known to delay or advance the emergence date of larvae and adults and to influence larval growth and survival (Thompson et al. 2014), and some information that changes in microclimate, and more specifically, temperature, may cause increased mortality due to changes in the synchronization of larval emergence and host plant availability (CaraDonna et al. 2018). Although there is no direct evidence to suggest that snowmaking has benefitted MCBB (i.e. concentrations of habitat and adults are not correlated directly with areas of increased watering as result of snowmaking), the large numbers of adults found in the action area in 2015 and 2019 suggest that conditions are improving for MCBB in the action area. Measures described above are designed to prevent erosion on new and existing ski runs caused by high intensity summer storms. The slow and steady runoff from snowmaking has not been a cause of erosion at the ski area and it is not anticipated that this would change.

Skiing Skiing operations would have no impact on any core or non-core habitat due to minimization measure 19 preventing skiing in areas where suitable habitat has insufficient snow cover.

Ski Run Grooming Ski run grooming operations would have no impact on any core or non-core habitat due to design criterion 20 preventing grooming operations in areas where suitable habitat has insufficient snow cover.

Lift Rides The typical lift ride would have no impacts on any core or non-core habitat. Impacts could occur if riders choose to walk down from the top of Chair 2. However, unlike under existing conditions, the proposed action includes building a hiking trail for visitors to walk down. Under the proposed action, ski area personnel would monitor hikers to ensure they stay on the trail. Impacts of lift riders walking down the designated hiking trail would be the same as those described below for hiking. Because the proposed action will regulate hiking that is currently unregulated, the proposed action is expected to reduce disturbance to MCBB and its habitat and thereby benefit the species overall.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 62

Hiking The exact location of the hiking trail has not been determined. However minimization measure 16 requires that the hiking trail be outside of suitable habitat. The 5-meter buffer added to suitable habitat is intended to prevent the disturbance of MCBB adults during construction, maintenance, and typical use of the proposed hiking trail. However, there may be occasions where an hikers leave the trail during the course of normal trail use. In such occasions, MCBB adults may be disturbed if they are present within 5 meters of the hiker while they are temporarily off the trail surface. The acreage of suitable habitat potentially impacted by this rare occurrence is expected to negligible.

Typical hiking operations are not expected to result in adverse effects to any core habitat and only a small amount of non-core habitat disturbance, as noted in Table 6. Unlike the existing conditions, under current operations, the proposed action would provide a designated trail for hikers, and ski area personnel would monitor hikers to ensure they stay on the trail. The designated hiking trail would avoid core MCBB habitat. Hikers who choose to hike off-trail would be ushered back onto the designated hiking trail. Because a designated trail and trail monitors would reduce the potential for off-trail hiking that could potentially adversely affect MCBB and its habitat, the adverse effects of hiking on MCBB may be reduced as a result of the proposed action.

Litter Clean-up It is currently uncertain where litter clean-up routes would go. However, minimization measure 21 prohibits routes that traverse suitable habitat, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts associated with litter clean up.

Snow Removal Snow removal operations would have no impact on any core or non-core habitat due to minimization measure 22 preventing snow from being moved from roads or parking areas into areas of suitable habitat. Minimization measure 23 also eliminates the potential for ice melting products to impact suitable habitat adjacent to roads or parking lots.

Fuel and Other Chemicals Proposed operations involving the use of fuel or other chemicals would impact no core or non- core habitat.

Mountain Coaster A small amount of core habitat and a small amount of non-core habitat could be disturbed by the mountain coaster. Impacts would be related to the passing coaster cars disturbing any adults close to the track during the flight period; adult MCBB could potentially be displaced or killed.

Mountain Biking The exact location of the mountain biking trails has not been determined. However, minimization measure 16 requires that the biking trails be outside suitable habitat. Mountain biking trails would also include a 5-meter buffer added to suitable habitat that is intended to prevent the disturbance of MCBB adults during construction, maintenance, and typical use of the

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 63

proposed biking trail. However, there may be occasions where an individual leaves the trail during the course of normal trail use. In such occasions, MCBB adults may be disturbed if they are present within 5 meters of the biker while they are temporarily off the trail surface.

Typical biking operations would result in a very small amount of core habitat disturbance and a small amount of non-core habitat disturbance, as noted in Table 6. A Bike Patrol would be periodically checking all trails to ensure bikers stay on the trail. Bikers who choose to bike off- trail would be ushered back onto the designated biking trails and repeat offenders would have their lift privileges revoked due to breach of the agreement they entered into by purchasing a lift ticket for downhill biking (incidents would be recorded and reported). Adverse effects would be related to the presence of bikers up to 3 meters off the trail surface, if such presence occurred during the adult MCBB flight period and adult MCBB were present, they could be displaced or killed.

Zip Line Operation of the proposed zip line would result in no core area impacts and a very small amount of non-core disturbance. Impacts would be related to the presence of people getting off the zip line at the final landing tower during the MCBB flight period, and the potential for adult MCBB to be disturbed and possibly injured or killed.

Combined Effects The previous sections describe effects from individual elements of the construction, maintenance, and operation of all elements of the ski area – both proposed and existing – so that impacts of each element are clear. Adverse effects of the proposed action on suitable habitat for MCBB are combined to illustrate the total impacts of the proposed action in Table 7, 8, and 9 and the sections below.

Combined Existing Effects As analyzed in other elements of the proposed action, the combined adverse effects of existing maintenance and operations of the ski area are defined in terms of acreage of habitat disturbed or removed. The combined impacts for the existing maintenance and operations of the ski area are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Combined acres of suitable MCBB habitat impacted by the maintenance and operation of the existing ski area.

Core Area Core Area Non-Core Non-Core Element Total Disturbance Removal Disturbance Removal Combined Maintenance and 3.7 0.2 6.1 1.0 11.0 Operations

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 64

The acreages in Table 7 were calculated by estimating the removal and disturbance of MCBB habitat caused by the maintenance and operation of the existing ski area such that if areas of habitat removal overlapped with areas of habitat disturbance, the acreage would be counted as habitat removal. In cases where two estimates of removal or disturbance respectively overlapped each other, one of the areas was removed such that the acreage was counted only once for that category of removal or disturbance.

When combined, the maintenance and operations of the existing ski area would remove 1.2 acres of suitable habitat (2.3 percent of the suitable habitat in the action area, and 0.8 percent of the suitable habitat in the Lee Canyon CHU) and disturb 9.8 acres of suitable habitat (19.5 percent of the suitable habitat at the ski area, and 6.7 percent of the suitable habitat in the Lee Canyon CHU). Of the suitable habitat in core areas, 1.7 percent of the total acreage of core areas would be removed and 32 percent would be disturbed.

All Effects Combined To determine the total impact of the proposed action, the adverse effects related to the existing ski area are combined with the adverse effects of the construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed infrastructure, summarized in Table 8. As explained above, sections were overlaid and any overlapping areas were removed.

Table 8. Combined acres of suitable MCBB habitat impacted by the maintenance and operation of the existing ski area and the construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed infrastructure

Core Area Core Area Non-Core Non-Core Element Total Disturbance Removal Disturbance Removal All Combined Construction, 4.5 1.3 9.3 12.4 27.5 Maintenance, and Operations

When all actions are combined, the project would remove a maximum of 13.7 acres of suitable habitat (27.3 percent of the suitable habitat in the action area and 9.4 percent of the suitable habitat in the CHU 2) and disturb 13.8 acres of suitable habitat (27.5 percent of the suitable habitat at the ski area and 9.5 percent of the suitable habitat in the Lee Canyon CHU). Of the suitable habitat core areas 11.3 percent of the total core area at the ski area would be removed and 39 percent would be disturbed.

Much of the 1.3 and 12.4 acres of habitat noted under “Core Area Removal” and “Non-Core Removal”, respectively, in Table 8 would not be completely removed (i.e., no longer qualify as suitable habitat per the Federal Register definition). As an example, a patch of suitable habitat within an area proposed for ski run grading may be completely removed (as is assumed in Table 8) by the shaping of terrain for appropriate ski run fall lines, or it could be avoided entirely, depending on how suitable the slope and fall lines are currently. Minimization measures 6 and 9

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 65

require that areas of suitable habitat be avoided in situations like this, where practical, but avoidance will not always be possible. But because the Forest Service has designed the proposed action to both reduce impacts to MCBB and beneficially improve habitat for the species, and because the Forest Service has, in all cases, overestimated the amount of habitat affected because of the assumption that all habitat in a given cell is suitable habitat where in many cases it is not, acreages described as “Core Area Removal” and “Non-Core Removal” in Table 8 should be viewed as an upper limit rather than an estimate of actual effects.

The acreage noted under “Core Area Disturbance” and “Non-Core Disturbance” should similarly be viewed as an upper limit. For example, if an action is able to be shifted away from suitable habitat, in accordance with minimization measure 9, the amount of habitat disturbance would also be reduced. Furthermore, any actions that take place outside of the adult MCBB flight period (mid-June through mid-September) would not result in any disturbance of adults since no adults would be present to be disturbed.

Effects to the MCBB and its habitat by the proposed action will occur from surface and vegetation disturbance by crews and equipment resulting in habitat removal. The proposed action will remove 12.4 acres of non-core habitat and 1.3 ac of core habitat for a total of 13.7 acres (Table 8 and 9). All eggs, larvae, and pupae present in the removal portion of the action area will be injured, crushed, buried, and killed. Adults during the flight period between June and September may be displaced or killed. The number of individual Mount Charleston blue butterflies that occupy the action area occurring as eggs, larva, and adults is unknown an not possible to quantify, so as explained and defined above, effects have been quantified in terms of acreage of core and non-core habitat removed and disturbed. Core and non-core areas are suitable habitat, that is, critical habitat that contains the PCEs to support the butterfly. Although impacts will occur to critical habitat that does not contain the PCEs in the action area, we have focused on core and non-core areas because these areas have consistently year after year contained the PCEs to support the butterfly, and other areas have not, and would not be expected to, develop the PCEs without restoration.

Table 9. Potential acres of Mount Charleston blue butterfly habitat which may be removed as a result of the proposed action permanently or for an extended period (all of which is crititical habitat). The total amount accounts for areas of overlap in the effects of construction, and maintenance and opeation of proposed and existing infrastructure (i.e., areas of overlap are counted only once, hence the total is lower than the sum of all effects). Habitat Removal Existing and New Infrastructure Core Non-Core Total

Existing Lee Canyon Ski Area Maintenance and Operations 0.2 1 1.2

Proposed Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan <0.1 0.8 0.85 Phase – 1 Maintenance and Operations Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan Phase – 1 1.2 12 13.2 Construction

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 66

Total for Maintenance, Operations, and Construction of the 1.3 12.4 13.7 Proposed Action

Consequences to all life stages of the MCBB and its habitat will occur to various extents. Individuals adjacent to disturbed habitat will be indirectly affected by the loss of available habitat. Adults in the upcoming flight season will be affected from reduced nectar food availability and areas of locations to deposit eggs. Larvae near the margins of directly affected areas will have reduced food availability and suitable habitat to enter pupation.

Summer construction, maintenance, and operations activities may influence feral horse activities that subsequently affect MCBB. In 2014 and 2015 there were more than 30 horses observed in LCSA (Thompson 2018a). Feral horses may kill MCBB or degrade MCBB habitat. Feral horses may trample butterflies in early stages of development, defecate in habitat which may smother host and nectar plants, trample host and nectar plants, and contribute to erosion (Boyd and Murphy 2008, Thompson 2018a). Impacts from feral horses to MCBB in Lee Canyon appear to have increased during the period of 2010 to 2015 (Thompson 2018a), but we do not have more recent information. Feral horses may also have beneficial effects to MCBB; grazing that lowers grass height may benefit MCBB that survive to become adults by decreasing flight obstructions (Thompson 2018a). The clearing of forest canopies will create openings that will likely increase forage production and could subsequently affect feral horse movements and distribution in Lee Canyon; this could result in either a beneficial effect to MCBB by better dispersing horses through the action area and thus reducing their overall impact, or result in an adverse effect by attracting horses to areas that are also suitable habitat for the MCBB.

We have developed with the Forest Service proposed minimization measures based on the design criteria in the BA. These are the 44 Proposed Minimization Measures in the Proposed Action section above. These measures serve to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential effects from construction, maintenance, and operations. Minimization measures proposed by the Forest Service will reduce the exposure and magnitude or harmful effects to MCBB and its habitat from the proposed action by: (1) avoiding MCBB habitat during the design and implementation of projects; (2) providing crew training to identify host and nectar plants that will help crews avoid MCBB habitat during construction, operations and maintenance; (3) implementation and post implementation monitoring which will also serve to reduce impacts to MCBB habitat during construction and maintenance through better identification of MCBB habitat on site and will provide post-implementation assessments of effects to MCBB habitat from construction and maintenance which will help improve future implementation; and (4) weed prevention measures that will serve to reduce the dispersal of weed propagules into the action area from construction and maintenance equipment and other vectors.

Effects of Nonnative Plant Species on the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly The introduction of forbs, shrubs, and nonnative grasses are a threat to the MCBB because these species can impede the butterfly’s flight as well as compete with, and decrease, the quality and abundance of larval host plant and adult nectar sources. Nonnative species can create a dense cover and are associated with less bare areas at LCSA (Titus and Landau 2003). The butterfly

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 67

with its host and nectar resources are most abundant in areas without introduced tall grasses and forbs (Boyd and Murphy 2008, Andrew et al. 2013, Thompson et al. 2014, Thompson 2018a). The introduction of nonnative plant species can result in a reduction in distribution of the MCBB (DataSmiths 2007, Boyd and Murphy 2008).

The proposed action also includes an extensive program to reduce nonnative weed species in the action area. Minimization measures will be implemented to reduce the dispersal of weed species within the action area through construction and maintenance equipment and materials (e.g., inspecting and cleaning vehicles and construction equipment, using certified weed-free straw bales and native fill material). Weed species will be inventoried and removed through mechanical and herbicide treatments. Effects of weed treatment to MCBB will be minimized by controls on what methods may be employed near MCBB habitat, with less invasive mechanical measures used near MCBB habitat. Habitat may also be restored with native species including host and nectar plants. The overall effect of weed management through the proposed action is expected to be beneficial in that nonnative weed species should be reduced and native host and nectar plants are expected to increase.

The Forest Service proposed minimization measures (6, 8, 9, 10, 30, 32, 33, 41, and 42 from the Proposed Minimization Measures section above) that will serve to collectively minimize the potential effects described above from nonnative plant species. Minimization measures proposed by the Forest Service will reduce the exposure and magnitude of harmful effects to MCBB and its habitat from the proposed action by: (1) reducing the disturbed area and reducing disturbance intensity through timing and location of activities relative to MCBB habitat when permissible; (2) salvaging and replacing native topsoil where possible to improve conditions for native plants and minimize dispersal of weed species; (3) monitoring and treating nonnative plants and conducting revegetation as needed based on guidelines and specifications approved by the USFWS to reduce the presence of nonnative weed species and increase the presence of native plants including MCBB host and nectar plants; (4) minimizing vectors of dispersal for nonnative plant species through vehicles, construction equipment, and other vectors.

Effects of Winter Recreation The physical alteration of the quantity, quality, and distribution of snow areas by winter recreation activities (ski runs, ski run grooming, snowmaking, skiing, snow removal, tree and glade skiing) may affect MCBB and its host and nectar resources. We have no specific information about winter recreation effects to MCBB or its host and nectar resources. However, there is a growing number of studies of effects of snowmaking and winter recreation on the subnivean zone (area between snowpack and the ground), plants, animals, and other snow associated ecological processes e.g. (Baiderin 1983, Rixen et al. 2003, 2008, Wipf et al. 2005, Whiteman 2008, Wipf and Rixen 2010, Roux-Fouillet et al. 2011, Keßler et al. 2012, Rolando et al. 2012, Kašák et al. 2013, Rixen and Rolando 2013, Sato et al. 2013, Erfanian et al. 2019). In a meta-analysis of studies, effects to fauna have been reported as positive, negative, neutral, or varied (Sato et al. 2013). Changes to snow distribution and densities can cause alterations to soil and vegetation processes (Rixen et al. 2008). Insulation of the ground by snow decreases with compaction that occurs

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 68

from snow grooming vehicles and skier activities (Rixen et al. 2008). Delays of plant flowering phenology from snow compaction can occur (Rixen et al. 2008, Rixen and Rolando 2013) and could affect timing of nectar plant availability for MCBB. As discussed above, variation in snow cover is known to delay or advance the emergence date of larvae and adults and to influence larval growth and survival (Thompson et al. 2014), and some information that changes in microclimate, and more specifically, temperature, may cause increased mortality due to changes in the synchronization of larval emergence and host plant availability (CaraDonna et al. 2018). However, although there is no direct evidence to suggest that snowmaking has benefitted MCBB (i.e. concentrations of habitat and adults are not correlated directly with areas of increased watering as result of snowmaking), the large numbers of adults found in the action area in 2015 and 2019 suggest that conditions are improving for MCBB in the action area under at least current snowmaking and snow management conditions. The Forest Service proposed minimization measures (15, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 in the Proposed Minimization Measures section above) to address the potential effects from winter recreation that will serve to collectively minimize the potential effects described above. Minimization measures proposed by the Forest Service will reduce the exposure and magnitude of harmful effects to MCBB and its habitat from the proposed action by: (1) avoiding habitat during maintenance and operations to protect MCBB habitat (2) reducing the disturbed area and reducing disturbance intensity when permissible to reduce adverse effects to MCBB habitat; and (3) monitoring recreation activities to proactively manage winter recreation to avoid and protect MCBB habitat.

Effects of Summer Recreation Summer recreation includes lift rides, use of the summer coaster, hiking and mountain biking activities. There is not expected to be any habitat removal associated with proposed ski area summer operations. Core and non-core area disturbance would occur, and adults during the flight period between June and September could be displaced and could also be killed. As explained above, core and non-core areas are MCBB critical habitat that is also suitable habitat because it contains the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Areas outside of the core and non-core areas may be critical habitat but do not, and have not historically, the PCEs necessary to support MCBB. Effects of the action are quantified in terms of habitat disturbed because it is not possible to estimate the number of individual MCBB that occupy the action area as eggs, larvae, or adults.

Although summer recreation does currently occur at LCSA in form of lift rides and hiking, the proposed action will result in an increase in visitation, and concomitant increase in potential adverse impacts to MCBB from the proposed expansion of summer recreational opportunities. The FEIS provides estimates of anticipated user numbers in the summer, including both mountain bikers and hikers. The Forest Service estimates that there could be 10,000 mountain biker visits the first year of operation and that this could increase to a maximum of 25,000 biker visits in 5 to 10 years (U.S. Forest Service 2019). The Forest Service further estimates that the LCSA could see 650 mountain bikers, 1,500 people riding the mountain coaster, and 300 individuals riding the zip line on a peak day (U.S. Forest Service 2019). There would also be increased use of roads by Lee Canyon personnel during summer months for operation and maintenance activities associated with increased summer recreation.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 69

A described above, use of the summer coaster, hiking, and mountain biking all could have disturbance effects to the MCBB. Adult MCBB during the flight period between June and September could be displaced and killed by hikers and mountain bikers, and eggs and larva could be killed by trampling, particularly if hikers and mountain bikers go off designated trails. But as described above, the Forest Service will utilize monitors and a Bike Patrol to ensure hikers and mountain bikers do not hike and mountain bike off of designated trails, and will build trails to avoid suitable habitat such that no trails will occur in suitable habitat (critical habitat that has the PCEs), and trails will be built with wide buffers separating the trail form suitable habitat.

During the flight period between June and September, all proposed actions near and in MCBB habitat could result in displacement of adults from host and nectar resources. Closely related butterfly species have been observed to respond similarly for flushing distance and duration to natural and human caused disturbance (Bennett et al. 2013). Regular disturbance may reduce egg laying potential and restrict host plant choice by effectively reducing habitat (Bennett et al. 2013). Negative relationships have also been observed between recreation trails and larva for other Lepidoptera (White et al. 2011).

The Forest Service and Lee Canyon have proposed to implement a number of minimization measures to reduce these effects, summarized below. The primary goal is avoidance, and trails and other areas of access by the public for recreation have been designed to avoid suitable habitat completely. Due to the design of recreational facilities, summer recreation is not expected to occur in suitable habitat. All effects of summer recreation will be in the form of disturbance in dispersal habitat. MCBB dispersal is a relatively rare event; that is, adult MCBB are much more commonly observed in areas of suitable habitat compared to dispersal habitat. Thus the potential for a mountain biker or hiker to kill a MCBB on a trail in dispersal habitat is very unlikely; we have no evidence that this has ever occurred despite high recreation visitation levels in occupied MCBB habitat in areas like the Bristlecone Trail. Lee Canyon will also employ monitors and a Bike Patrol to keep recreationists out of suitable habitat. Notably, other nearby areas that have very high summer visitation rates and MCBB and MCBB habitat, such as the Upper Bristlecone Trail, Bristlecone Trail, Bonanza, and Foxtail, and which also have either or both hiking and mountain biking, have not appeared to result in a decline in the MCBB. Further, the Forest Service does not have the capability of monitoring and managing this recreation in the way that Lee Canyon proposes to do (e.g., recreation monitors, Bike Patrol, and roping sensitive areas). Given this, we anticipate that, despite the expected increase in summer visitation and recreational activities in the LCSA as a result of the proposed action, we do not expect that the increase will have a significant adverse effect on MCBB in the action area.

The Forest Service proposed minimization measures (16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 in the Proposed Minimization Measures section above) to address the potential adverse effects from summer recreation that will serve to collectively minimize the potential effects described above. Minimization measures proposed by the Forest Service will reduce the exposure and magnitude of harmful effects to MCBB and its habitat from the proposed action by: (1) avoiding habitat during maintenance and operations to protect MCBB habitat (2) reducing the disturbed area and reducing disturbance intensity when permissible to reduce adverse effects to MCBB habitat; (3) crew training and public education to avoid habitat so crew and the public can avoid MCBB

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 70

habitat during construction and maintenance and recreation activities during the adult flight period; and (4) monitoring recreation activities to proactively manage summer recreation to avoid and protect MCBB habitat.

Effects of Project Surveys The Forest Service proposes to conduct additional surveys of habitat for MCBB, as specified in Appendix B of the BA (Westover 2019), to implement the proposed action, avoid and minimize effects to the MCBB, and evaluate effects from the proposed action. Surveys would involve qualified MCBB biologists and monitors surveying for the species in suitable and dispersal habitat. Although unlikely, these activities could result in adverse effects including the injury or death of MCBB as a result of inadvertently trampling host and nectar plants and co-occurring MCBB eggs, larvae, or pupae, or disturbance of adult MCBB.

The Forest Service proposed minimization measures (1 and 43 in the Proposed Minimization Measures section above) to address the potential adverse effects from project surveys that will serve to collectively minimize the potential adverse effects described above. Minimization measures proposed by the Forest Service will reduce the exposure and magnitude of harmful effects to MCBB and its habitat from the proposed action by: (1) ensuring only qualified MCBB biologists and monitors are conducting surveys, and (2) ensuring that project surveys are only conducted in such a way that MCBB habitat is avoided and adverse effects to host and nectar plants are minimized, and effects of disturbance to adult MCBB are minimized.

Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly Conclusions In this biological opinion, we are required to analyze whether the proposed action is likely “to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. Our conclusions are thus summarized in terms of the effects of the action in terms of its effects to reproduction, numbers, and distribution, as well as to overall recovery, of the MCBB.

The numbers of MCBB affected by the proposed action includes all life stages. It is not possible to estimate the number of individuals of each life stage of MCBB in the action area, or across its range. Surveys have primarily been conducted for adults and have varied in methodology, effort, frequency, time of year conducted, and locations visited; therefore, we also cannot statistically determine population size, dynamics, or trends for the MCBB. Surveys that count adults only provide an index of the relative abundance or presence and absence of a population at a location.

Surveys for MCBB eggs, larva, or pupa to acquire any estimate of individuals in an area are impractical. The small size and cryptic form of these life stages make them extremely difficult to detect. In 2011, Thompson et al. (2014) reported searching 2,012 Astragalus calycosus plants between two locations and found no eggs, larva, or pupa. In 2012, they reported searching 762 A. calycosus and Oxytropis oreophila plants at two locations and found 17 eggs on 16 plants but no larva or pupa. Based on this, it is not practical to determine the number of eggs, larva, or pupa in any particular occupied location.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 71

The MCBB population can fluctuate widely within and between years (Austin and Austin 1980, Thompson 2018a). The population size in any given year is likely to be highest during the adult flight period after eggs are laid by females. Similar to other insects, mortality of MCBB will be greatest during early parts of its life history as eggs or young larvae. Larvae are likely to be present year-round, and differences in mortality among generations may occur. After the population peaks during the flight period, the population of MCBB will decrease as mortality of all life stages occurs throughout the year. Figure 10 provides a hypothetical example to illustrate the presence and absence of life stages and their abundance relative to the entire population of MCBB.

Reproduction We did not attempt to estimate the number of individual MCBB in early life stages (eggs, larvae, and pupae) that may be impacted by the proposed action, however, we acknowledge some number are likely to be killed. Because they are difficult to observe, proposed actions resulting in habitat removal are likely to kill early life stages of MCBB occurring in those areas and will not be detected. This may reduce population recruitment or create temporary demographic changes. The potential mortality of early MCBB life stages in the action area will likely affect recruitment (i.e., individuals reaching adult reproductive age).

Figure 10. Hypothetical Mount Charleston blue butterfly life stage presence (bars) and relative abundance (darker blue = higher numbers) of the population during any year.

In this biological opinion, we us acres of suitable habitat removed by the proposed action to provide a surrogate for numbers of individuals which may be killed or injured. The proposed

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 72 action will remove 12.4 acres of non-core habitat and 1.3 acres of core habitat for a total of 13.7 acres (11.3 percent of the core habitat area or 27.3 percent of the suitable MCBB habitat in the action area). The proposed action would remove at most 1.6–4.0 percent of suitable MCBB habitat rangewide. The proposed action is also expected to improve MCBB habitat and potentially create additional suitable habitat, but it is not known how much habitat will ultimately be created. Although effects of disturbance to adult MCBB in suitable habitat and in dispersal habitat could disturb and kill adult MCBB, we anticipate this would be a rare outcome that would be negligible relative to numbers of adult MCBB in the action area during the flight season, and would thus have a negligible effect on reproduction.

Although we are not comparing any estimates of the numbers of early MCBB life stages likely to be killed or injured to the overall numbers within the range of the species, we can reasonably conclude that any estimate would be a small percentage of the overall numbers of MCBB. We conclude this because the number of MCBB affected by the proposed action is a small percentage of the population in the action area. Additionally, actions that remove the forest canopy may create opportunities in areas that allow habitat for MCBB to improve or expand by creating openings for host and nectar plants that may emerge from seed banks or disperse from adjacent areas, or are created through restoration, which could benefit MCBB reproduction. Consequently, although actions that remove habitat are likely to kill early MCBB life stages and some additional early life stages during operations and maintenance, some actions may benefit MCBB reproduction, and overall the proposed action is not likely to appreciably diminish the number of early MCBB life stages in the action area. For these reasons, we expect that the proposed action is likely to have a minimal effect on the reproductive capacity of MCBB in the action area.

Numbers The numbers of MCBB which will be killed or harmed as a result of the proposed action is a function of the disturbance characteristics and number of individuals in an area that are destroyed or disturbed. There is little information about the MCBB population to estimate the numerical effects of the proposed action. Mount Charleston blue butterfly abundance in the action area is estimated to be low in most areas of habitat, with higher concentrations of individuals within the core habitat near Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs. However, overall, as described in the Status of the Species section, recent surveys indicate that MCBB are increasing in the action area, despite, or perhaps because of, LCSA operations. We expect a lower number of adult MCBB will be killed or injured by the proposed action because their flight ability allows them to escape. Most individuals that will be killed by the proposed action will be in early life stages. We expect that project development and program activities within the action area are likely to kill or injure Mount Charleston blue butterflies, but it is not possible to quantify the number that may be killed because of their cryptic nature and small size. In this biological opinion, we us acres of suitable habitat removed by the proposed action to provide a surrogate for numbers of individuals which may be killed or injured. The proposed action will remove 12.4 acres of non-core habitat and 1.3 acres of core habitat for a total of 13.7 acres (11.3 percent of the core habitat area or 27.3 percent of the suitable MCBB habitat in the action area). The proposed action may affect 1.6–4.0 percent of suitable MCBB habitat rangewide. The proposed action is also expected to improve MCBB

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 73

habitat and potentially create additional suitable habitat, but it is not known how much habitat will ultimately be created. Although effects of disturbance to adult MCBB in suitable habitat and in dispersal habitat could disturb and kill adult MCBB, we anticipate this would be a rare outcome that would be negligible relative to numbers of adult MCBB in the action area during the flight season.

For these reasons, we expect that the proposed action is likely to have an adverse effect on the numbers of MCBB in the action area but could also have a beneficial effect. Numbers of MCBB have been increasing in the action area under current operations, and the Forest Service’s proposed action includes elements to create additional suitable habitat that could have a beneficial effect, increasing numbers of MCBB in the action area.

Distribution The proposed action will remove 12.4 acres of non-core habitat and 1.3 acres of core habitat for a total of no more than 13.7 acres (11.3 percent of the core habitat area or 27.3 percent of the suitable MCBB habitat in the action area). The proposed action may affect 1.6–4.0 percent of suitable MCBB habitat rangewide. Also, the estimate of habitat removed, as stated throughout this BO, is likely an overestimate, and habitat removed, in many cases, could recover over time to provide suitable habitat in the future. Thus we expect the percentage of habitat lost at any location or of the entire habitat rangewide due to the project would be relatively small. Similarly, the effects of disturbance to adult MCBB in suitable habitat and in dispersal habitat are expected to be small and not result in any changes in distribution. The proposed action is also expected to improve MCBB habitat and potentially create additional suitable habitat, but it is not known how much habitat will ultimately be created. We anticipate that the relatively small loss of suitable habitat relative to that available in the CHU and rangewide will not appreciably reduce the rangewide distribution of the MCBB.

Effects on Recovery To achieve recovery: known MCBB locations must persist or be replaced by equivalent locations; new locations will need to be discovered or created within dispersal distance of known occupied locations; and threats to habitat will need to be reduced or removed. We expect the habitat removal would not constitute a numerically significant portion of the range of the butterfly. A maximum estimate of approximately 13.7 acres of the suitable MCBB habitat in the action area (27.3 percent of the 50.1 acres in the action area, 9.5 percent of the 144.9 acres in CHU 2, and 1.6–4.0 percent of suitable MCBB habitat rangewide) may be removed by the proposed action. The estimate of habitat removed, as stated throughout this BO, is likely an overestimate, and habitat removed, in many cases, could recover over time to provide suitable habitat in the future. Thus we expect the percentage of habitat lost at any location or of the entire habitat rangewide due to the project would be relatively small.

There are four population locations in the action area: the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs are considered known occupied and are collectively referred to as the Lee Canyon Ski Area; Lower Parking (= Lower LVSSR Parking, Service 2013), Gary Abbott, and Upper Bristlecone Trailhead are presumed occupied locations. Recent surveys in the Lee Canyon Ski Area found

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 74

MCBB in low numbers in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2018 (Thompson et al. 2014, Thompson 2018a, U.S. Forest Service 2016, U.S. Forest Service 2017). In 2019, however, over 100 MCBB were observed from 6 separate visits to the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs. A third ski run, known as the Line, also contained over 30 MCBB when surveyed in 2019. The Line ski run is approximately 100 meters east of the Bimbo ski run. In total, over 150 MCBB were observed in the Lee Canyon Ski Area in 2019. This data indicates that recent management efforts by the Forest Service and Lee Canyon have been consistent with recovery of MCBB. The LCSA contains some of the highest quality patches of suitable habitat found in the Spring Mountains. Although presumed occupied locations have had few MCBB observations (Gary Abbot in 1995 and 2017, Lower Parking in 1995), both these areas still contain suitable habitat, and Gary Abbot contains areas of very high host and nectar plant density.

Within the LCSA, the MCBB has been incidentally observed outside the main surveyed areas of the Bimbo and Blackjack ski runs. In 2016, the MCBB was detected in areas at the top of Blackjack ski run (US Forest Service 2016) approximately 150 meters upslope from any of the nearest areas of habitat which were delineated (Andrew et al. 2013) and 30–50 m from cells depicted as habitat in Figure 10 of the BA (Westover 2019). In 2017 a MCBB was observed next to the west side of the road going up The Strip ski run (US Forest Service 2017), approximately 75 meters from habitat in the Bimbo ski run. However, in 2013 there was 0.04 ac of habitat mapped in this area for the LVSSR Chair 2 Replacement Project (File No. 84320-2013-I-0281 and 84320-2013-FC-0281). In 2019 the Line ski run had over 30 MCBB observations (Thompson 2020).

In addition to the core and non-core areas, the Forest Service also identified areas for potential habitat improvement to attempt to increase the amount of suitable habitat that contains the PCEs (i.e. to create additional core and non-core habitat). Using glading, removing trees to open up areas that are currently too densely forested for most skiers to navigate comfortably, the Forest Service estimates that approximately 90.3 acres of MCBB critical habitat that is currently not suitable habitat but is dispersal habitat, could become suitable habitat under the proposed action as a result of glading or could provide increased connectivity between habitat areas due to reduced tree cover.

Given that MCBB appear to be increasing in the action area under current operations of the LCSA, although a maximum estimate of approximately 13.7 acres of the suitable MCBB habitat in the action area (27.3 percent of the 50.1 acres in the action area, 9.5 percent of the 144.9 acres in CHU 2, and 1.6–4.0 percent of suitable MCBB habitat rangewide) may be removed by the proposed action, efforts to improve habitat in the action area through restoration and glading may ultimately result in an overall beneficial effect. Based on these considerations, the proposed action may have an overall slight negative or slight beneficial effect on the reproduction, numbers, and distribution of MCBB in the action area, but considering that management of the LCSA appears consistent with the long-term persistence and resilience of populations, we do not believe the proposed action will appreciably diminish the ability of MCBB to attain recovery in the future, even if the expected beneficial effects of the proposed action are not fully realized.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 75

Critical Habitat Effects of the proposed action that may impact the MCBB are completely within CHU 2. Within the CHU, the PCEs essential to the conservation of the MCBB are listed above in Status of the Species section. The estimated acres to be affected by the proposed action are provided in Table 9. The estimated amount of critical habitat affected by the proposed action is likely an overestimate because it includes areas that may not be habitat because of low densities of host or nectar plants (green cells Figure 9) within cells and high tree canopy cover, and because in many cases areas of removal will be restored for the purpose of creating MCBB habitat and so may become MCBB habitat in the future. The following are anticipated effects to the specific PCEs of the MCBB critical habitat:

1. Primary Constituent Element 1 Effects: The proposed action will reduce tree cover, and disturbance from restoration work will increase spaces between forbs and grasses in areas, which will likely result in a net increase of PCE 1; 2. Primary Constituent Element 2 Effects: The proposed action will likely disturb most host plants in the 13.7 acres where host plants may be lost for an extended or permanent period of time, but activities to reduce tree cover may provide additional host plants in the future; if beneficial effects of the proposed action are not realized, there will be a net decrease in PCE 2; 3. Primary Constituent Element 3 Effects: The proposed action will likely disturb most nectar plants in the 13.7 acres where nectar plants may be lost for an extended or permanent period of time, but activities to reduce tree cover may provide additional nectar plants in the future; if beneficial effects of the proposed action are not realized, there will be net decrease in PCE 3.

For our critical habitat analysis, we focus on what the Forest Service termed habitat removal as this is habitat that is potentially permanently destroyed or lost for an extended period of time (although much of this estimate will likely not be permanently destroyed as explained above). Effects identified as disturbance, while useful in understanding and quantifying the potential of the proposed action to disturb and thereby possibly kill adult MCBB during the flight period, and could result in some short-term habitat loss (e.g. a hiker that goes off trail and tramples host and nectar plants), it is not anticipated to have a permanent effect to critical habitat. Of the 144.9 acres of mapped critical habitat with PCEs in the 2,569 ac Lee Canyon CHU there are 13.7 acres that may be removed by the proposed action. As described above, the methods used to map habitat in the BA for the proposed action and for within the CHU (Andrew et al. 2013, Thompson 2018b) were different and are not directly comparable. However, it provides an estimate of the relative magnitude of the proposed action on critical habitat. Areas of core habitat that have the greatest concentration of primary constituent elements, 1.3 acres of the 13.7 acres of habitat that may be removed by the proposed action represents a small fraction to be affected. The proposed action will remove about 11.3 percent of the core habitat areas (1.3 of 11.5 acres). The proposed action would remove a total of 13.7 acres of the 50.1 acres of available suitable habitat in the action area (approximately 27 percent). The proposed action would remove about 29 percent of all critical habitat (suitable and dispersal habitat) within the action area (120.8 of 414 acres), but only about 2 percent of all critical habitat rangewide (120.8 acres of 5,214 acres),

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 76

and only 9.4 percent of available suitable habitat in CHU 2 (13.7 of 144.9 acres), and only about 1.6-4.0 percent of all suitable critical habitat rangewide (13.7 acres of suitable habitat of between 344.9-854.9 acres of suitable habitat in the 3 CHUs). These estimates of habitat removed are likely an overestimate, and habitat removed, in many cases, may recover and become suitable habitat in the future.

Effects to MCBB as described above have been quantified as effects on critical habitat because effects have been measured as acreages of suitable habitat which is critical habitat that contains PCEs for the species, and suitable habitat either removed or disturbed providing a proxy for impacts to individual MCBB adults, larvae, pupae, or eggs. Direct effects of the construction, maintenance, and operations of new and existing infrastructure quantified in this way not only serve as a proxy but also quantify impacts to critical habitat itself, as any habitat removal noted in the sections above would be an adverse effect to critical habitat. It is appropriate to quantify these impacts as the Forest Service has in terms of core and non-core habitat because these areas contain the PCEs to support MCBB and have consistently over time, and so are the most important areas of critical habitat. However, there will also be potential effects of project activities on areas within the designated critical habitat boundaries that do not currently contain PCEs.

A total of 93.3 acres of dispersal habitat (critical habitat that does not contain the PCEs) within CHU 2 that have been identified as non-suitable habitat because it does not contain the PCEs (e.g., no host or nectar plants are present) would be impacted by construction of the proposed infrastructure. This acreage is in addition to the 27.5 acres of suitable habitat that would be affected and is discussed above. Of these 93.3 acres, approximately 90.3 acres of non-suitable dispersal habitat within the Lee Canyon critical habitat unit would be affected by the proposed action. The remaining 3 acres of critical habitat would be disturbed by the project but neither improved nor adversely modified with respect to its suitability as MCBB dispersal habitat. All of the 93.3 acres of dispersal habitat are expected to continue to serve as dispersal habitat for MCBB, and 90.3 acres could in fact be beneficially affected such that in the future they could provide the PCEs for MCBB and thus be converted from dispersal habitat to suitable habitat, providing for greater numbers and distribution of MCBB across the action area.

The amount and connectivity of suitable habitat at the LCSA is expected to increase as a result of the removal of trees (due to ski run construction and glading) that are currently providing too much shading for sufficient densities of MCBB host and nectar plants to grow underneath them, and for eggs, larvae, and pupae to get sufficient thermal radiation. The construction of the proposed infrastructure would glade or remove trees entirely from approximately 95 acres in five patches (90.3 acres within the critical habitat boundary and an additional 4.7 acres outside of it). The five patches are the three gladed areas and the two pods of ski runs. Some of these patches have more potential for growth of suitable habitat than others. Given the proximity of the Chair 8 pod runs, the gladed area near the bottom of pod 8, the gladed area between the existing Keno and Blackjack ski runs, and the Chair 5 pod ski runs to existing suitable habitat, it is highly likely that suitable habitat could develop in these areas (Herrmann 2014). In the patch of glading above the snowmaking pond, the development of suitable habitat and the subsequent use of the area by MCBB is less likely due to the distance from significant patches of existing suitable habitat.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 77

Within these five patches, specific elements of the proposed action could generate habitat expansion in three ways. First would be the gradual expansion at the perimeter of suitable habitat patches as the plants there propagated into newly habitable areas. Second would be the increase in host and nectar plant density in areas where shading is currently a limiting factor for new plant establishment. Third would be propagation by seeds from distant habitat patches finding their way to newly habitable areas.

Critical habitat between the core and non-core areas in the action area also provides important connectivity corridors of butterfly populations between or adjacent to areas of suitable habitat. It is important to maintain or improve these connectivity corridors to maintain metapopulation dynamics throughout the action area. The Forest Service is proposing to increase connectivity between suitable habitat patches. Increased connectivity among habitat patches could occur in two ways. First would be removal of tall vegetation, which serves as a barrier to MCBB movement, by glading and clearing. Second would be establishment of conditions that could lead to the development of suitable habitat in patches (e.g., gladed areas) or linear features (e.g., cleared ski runs) in intervening areas between established patches. If this occurred, it would reduce the barriers for individuals and subpopulations to move and populate existing or newly created suitable habitat.

Should they occur as predicted, all of these processes would result in increased acreage of suitable habitat as well as the eventual connection of currently distinct habitat patches. Evidence from the recent Carpenter 1 fire, as well as observation of previous disturbance at the ski area, supports these anticipated improvements. Following the disturbance of the Carpenter 1 fire, the first vegetation to grow into plots within disturbed areas were plants that serve as host or nectar plants for the MCBB. Furthermore, these plants grew back in significant numbers (Herrmann 2014). While the aforementioned Carpenter fire observations, and observations of previous disturbance at the ski area, support the idea that habitat may grow into newly cleared areas, it is not certain that this will occur. Proposed minimization measures by the Forest Service should also ensure that potential adverse effects to critical habitat are minimized or avoided through: (1) crew training to identify host and nectar plants to better avoid critical habitat during construction, operation, and maintenance, (2) avoidance of habitat and host and nectar plants during project maintenance, operations, and constructions activities to protect MCBB critical habitat, (3) implementation and post implementation monitoring to detect adverse effects to critical habitat and improve future implementation to avoid critical habitat, and (4) a weed prevention and control program that should remove and reduce numbers of nonnative weed species and increase native plant species to benefit critical habitat.

We conclude that, because of the relatively small amount of critical habitat affected relative to that available in CHU 2 and rangewide, and the proposed minimization measures designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to critical habitat, the proposed action will have a negligible effect on the value of CHU 2 to support recovery of the MCBB, and will not appreciably diminish the ability of critical habitat to provide for the recovery of the MCBB rangewide, even if the proposed beneficial effects of the proposed action are never realized. If the expected

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 78 beneficial effects of the proposed action are realized, the proposed action may have an overall beneficial effect on the ability of critical habitat in the action area and rangewide to provide for MCBB recovery.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the particular Federal action subject to consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Cumulative effects do not include future Federal activities that are physically located within the action area of the particular Federal action under consultation. Past and present impacts of non-federal actions are considered part of environmental baseline conditions. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they would likely require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Because the action area and surrounding land is Federal land, no future, non-Federal activities are reasonably certain to occur in the action area.

CONCLUSION

Jeopardy Conclusion When determining whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species, we are required to consider whether the action would “reasonably be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 CFR 402.02).

After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the project area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that implementation of the action as proposed in the biological assessment is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the MCBB. The Service has reached this conclusion based on the following:

1. The Forest Service has proposed minimization measures that will avoid and minimize impacts to MCBB through planning, implementation, and monitoring of the proposed action. 2. Most of the suitable habitat that will be potentially removed, 12.4 acres of non-core habitat of 13.7 acres of total habitat removal, likely has lower numbers of individuals than core habitat areas, 1.3 acres of which will be removed, based on historical surveys and habitat conditions such as lower host and nectar plant densities as well as higher tree canopy cover. 3. The distribution of MCBB may be locally reduced at each location impacted but the demographic connectivity between populations will not be affected, and the distribution of MCBB across the action area could potentially be improved in the future if beneficial aspects of the proposed action are realized.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 79

4. The magnitude of the effects to MCBB and its habitat relative to its range and habitat available, both within the action area and rangewide, will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of recovery of the species.

Adverse Modification Conclusion After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the project area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that implementation of the action as proposed in the biological assessment is not likely to adversely modify any designated critical habitat for the MCBB.

The Service has reached this conclusion based on the following:

1. The Forest Service has proposed minimization measures that will serve to avoid and minimize impacts to critical habitat through planning, implementation, and monitoring of the proposed action. 2. The amount of critical habitat that is estimated to be impacted by the proposed action is likely and overestimate and small relative to the amount of habitat available in CHU 2. Estimated impacts are likely overestimated because of disparate methods of habitat area estimation. Critical habitat function will persist for MCBB to reproduce and opportunities may occur for the expansion of habitat into new areas with decreased canopy cover and reduced numbers of nonnative weed species resulting from the proposed action. 3. The amount of core habitat (which has the greatest concentration of PCEs) estimated to be removed, 1.3 acres, is a relatively small proportion of core habitat available in the action area, 11.3 percent; similarly, the proposed action would affect (remove) a relatively small proportion, approximately 9.4 percent, of available suitable habitat in CHU 2, and only about 1.6-4.0 percent of all suitable critical habitat rangewide.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibits take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or wildlife without a special exemption. “Harm” is defined to mean any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include, including significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR § 17.3). Incidental take is any take of listed animal species that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant. Under the terms of sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act, taking that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

In June 2015, the Service finalized new regulations implementing the incidental take provisions of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. The new regulations also clarify the standard regarding when the Service formulates an incidental take statement [50 CFR 402.14(g)(7)], from “…if such take

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 80

may occur” to “…if such take is reasonably certain to occur.” This is not a new standard, but merely a clarification and codification of the applicable standard that the Service has been using and is consistent with case law. The standard does not require a guarantee that take will result; only that the Service establishes a rational basis for a finding of take. The Service continues to rely on the best available scientific and commercial data, as well as professional judgment, in reaching these determinations and resolving uncertainties or information gaps.

The measures proposed by Forest Service as part of this incidental take statement are nondiscretionary and must be implemented by Forest Service, or other jurisdictional Federal agencies as appropriate, so that they become binding conditions of any project, contract, grant, or permit issued by Forest Service, or other jurisdictional Federal agencies as appropriate, in order for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Service’s evaluation of the effects of the proposed actions includes consideration of the measures developed by Forest Service, to minimize the adverse effects of the proposed action on the MCBB. Any subsequent changes in the minimization measures proposed by Forest Service, or other jurisdictional Federal agencies as appropriate, may constitute a modification of the proposed action and may warrant reinitiation of formal consultation, as specified at 50 CFR § 402.16.

The Forest Service, or other jurisdictional Federal agency, has a continuing duty to regulate the activity that is covered by this incidental take statement as long as the affected area is retained in Federal ownership or control. If Forest Service, or other jurisdictional Federal agency, (1) fails to require the project proponent to adhere to the action-specific terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document or (2) fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance with action-specific terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse.

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ANTICIPATED

The proposed project will result in incidental take in the form of harming or killing Mount Charleston blue butterflies occupying the 13.7 ac subject to disturbance (removal). Incidental take will occur through loss of host and nectar plants. Mortality will occur through the crushing of eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults. Quantifying the number of Mount Charleston blue butterflies that may be incidentally taken is not possible because the butterfly’s small size, diapausing life stages, and cryptic nature. In addition, any estimate of numbers of MCBB that would be affected by the proposed action is unrealistic because of variations in butterfly densities across the action area as well as inter- and intra-annual variation of the number of butterflies in different life stages. This makes any reasonable estimate of numbers that could be affected but undetected incalculable without a confidence interval that renders such an estimate unrealistic. Because we cannot reasonably identify or predict the number of Mount Charleston blue butterfly to be taken, we are using habitat as a surrogate for the incidental take of MCBB. Based on the proposed project, a total of 13.7 ac of habitat may be lost, although as explained above, this is likely an overestimate, and habitat removed by the proposed action may recover and become suitable habitat in future. Should the extent of incidental take associated with any project activity exceed the level identified in Table 10, reinitiation of consultation will be required (see REINITIATION NOTICE).

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 81

Table 10. Amount or extent of Mount Charleston blue butterfly take expected for each project activity.

Anticipated Habitat Loss (acres) Exempted Mortality or Injury Critical Non-critical Project Activity

Existing Lee Canyon Ski Area Maintenance and Operations Unknown 1.2 0

Proposed Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan Phase – 1 Maintenance Unknown and Operations 0.85 0

Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan Phase – 1 Construction Unknown 13.2 0

Total for Maintenance, Operations, and Unknown Construction of the Proposed Action5 13.7 0

EFFECT OF TAKE In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the MCBB or destruction or modification of designated critical habitat. This determination is based in part on the implementation of design criteria as minimization measures detailed in this BO and BA provided by Forest Service with their request for consultation and subsequent discussions during the consultation period.

REASONABLE AND PUDENT MEASURES AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The Forest Service will implement minimization measures included as part of the proposed action to minimize the incidental take of MCBB. Any proposed changes to the minimization measures or in the conditions under which project activities were evaluated may constitute a modification of the proposed action. If this modification causes an effect to MCBB not considered in this BO, reinitiation of formal consultation pursuant to the implementing regulations of section 7(a)(2) of the Act (50 CFR § 402.16) may be warranted.

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Forest Service, all agents, consultants, and contractors, must comply with the proposed measures in the Description of the Proposed Action incorporated into this incidental take statement by reference. Collectively, these

5 The total in this row is less than infrastructure in the previous rows because of overlap in the GIS analysis.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 82

measures are intended to minimize the impact of incidental take of MCBB. These measures are non-discretionary.

The Service believes that the measures proposed by Forest Service are adequate and appropriate to minimize the incidental take of MCBB. Therefore, we are not including any reasonable and prudent measures with terms and conditions in this incidental take statement

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Federal agencies have a continuing duty to monitor the impacts of incidental take resulting from their activities [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)]. In doing so, the Federal agency must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified below. The Forest Service must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this incidental take statement. The Forest Service will ensure that a report documenting MCBB encounters, incidental take, and effectiveness and compliance with the MCBB protection measures is prepared and submitted to the Service’s Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office in Las Vegas.

For each year this biological opinion is in effect, Forest Service must provide a written annual report by December 31 of the year following initiation of activities. The report must contain information on the following: (1) the dates and activities that occurred within 10 meters of MCBB habitat in the action area; (2) the location of the activities; (3) a description of effects on the MCBB and its habitat that includes the area affected; (4) steps taken to avoid or minimize effects; (5) pertinent information concerning the success of the Project in meeting the avoidance and minimization measures; (6) an explanation of failure to meet such measures, if any; (7) documentation of employee education related to minimizing effects of the action on the MCBB; (8) information about encounters with Mount Charleston blue butterflies that includes UTM coordinates (Zone 11, NAD 83), date and time, observer, voucher photos, activity, and notes about the observation; 9) all additional reporting as specified in Appendix C of the BA and as updated thereafter; and 10) any other pertinent information.

DISPOSITION OF DEAD OR INJURED SPECIMENS As part of this incidental take statement and pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(v), upon locating a dead or injured MCBB initial notification within 3 working days of its finding must be made by telephone and in writing to the Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (702-515-5450). At that time, the Service and Forest Service shall review the circumstances surrounding the incident to determine whether additional protective measures are required. The report must include the date, time, location of the carcass, a photograph, cause of death or injury, if known, and any other pertinent information. Dead specimens and/or appropriate parts of dead specimens that are taken will be preserved in accordance with standard museum practices. Within 120 days, the preserved specimen(s) will be properly labeled and deposited with one of the designated repositories designated by the SNFWO.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 83

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions that either minimize or avoid adverse effects or that benefit listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations. The Service hereby makes the following conservation recommendations:

1. The Service recommends the Forest Service establish a program to monitor and manage the potential future recreational impacts throughout Lee Canyon which will likely result from increased awareness, demand, and capacity for recreation in Lee Canyon. As part of this we recommend the Forest Service develop a comprehensive long-term watershed scale plan for conserving Spring Mountains endemic species in Lee Canyon while providing for its other goals and objectives in the area. 2. The Service recommends that the Forest Service establish a scientifically designed long- term study to evaluate the response of MCBB and its habitat to recreation and other management activities in Lee Canyon. 3. The Service recommends the Forest Service remove feral horses and burros from Lee Canyon and prevent further occupation by developing appropriate management strategies to prevent their reentry. 4. The Service recommends the Forest Service study the effects of snowmaking and winter recreation management on the MCBB. From these studies we recommend the Forest Service develop best management practices to conserve the MCBB while providing winter recreation opportunities. 5. The Service recommends the Forest Service develop and implement a plan to control erosion on ski slopes at Lee Canyon special use permit area. Plans should include restoring areas dominated by introduced grasses with plants native to the Spring Mountains. 6. The Service recommends the Forest Service develop, plan, and implement habitat restoration in Lee Canyon for recovering the MCBB.

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in your request received July 31, 2019. As required by 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over an action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 84 affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

If you have any questions about this biological opinion, please contact Corey Kallstrom in the Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office at (702) 515-5230. Please reference File No. 08ENVS00-F-0163 in future correspondence concerning this consultation.

Sincerely,

Glen W. Knowles Field Supervisor cc: Supervisory Biologist - Habitat, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 85

LITERATURE CITED

Andrew, G., M. Glenn, P. Jacoby-Garrett, and D. Thompson. 2013. Surveys and Habitat Assessment for Plebejus shasta charlestonensis (Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly) in the Spring Mountain Range of Nevada (2012 field season). March 6, 2013. Final Revision December 11 (w/new Figures). Final Revi. Submitted to United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern Nevada Field Office in cooperation with United States Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Austin, G. T. 1980. A new Plebejus (Icaricia) shasta (Edwards) from southern Nevada (Lycaenidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 34:20–24.

Austin, G. T., and A. T. Austin. 1980. Butterflies of Clark County, Nevada. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 19:1–63.

Austin, G. T., and P. J. Leary. 2008. Larval hostplants of butterflies in Nevada. Holarctic Lepidoptera 12:1–134.

Baiderin, V. V. 1983. Winter recreation and subnivial plant development. Soviet Journal of Ecology 13:287–291.

Bennett, V., V. Quinn, and P. Zollner. 2013. Exploring the implications of recreational disturbance on an endangered butterfly using a novel modelling approach. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:1783–1798.

Boyd, B. M., and G. T. Austin. 1999. Final report on butterfly investigations in the Spring Mountains, Nevada, 1998, and a proposed monitoring program for endemic species. Prepared for: U.S. Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas Nevada in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada in support of the Conservation Agreement for the Spring Mountains NRA.

Boyd, B. M., and D. D. Murphy. 2008. A report on the status of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly and its essential resources at and adjacent to the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort -- 2008. Prepared for Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort, Las Vegas, Nevada.

CaraDonna P.J., Cunningham J.L., Iler A.M. 2018. Experimental warming in the field delays phenology and reduces body mass, fat content and survival: Implications for the persistence of a pollinator under climate change. Functional Ecology 2018;32:2345–2356. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13151

Carvajal-Acosta, A. N., S. R. Abella, and D. B. Thompson. 2015. Initial vegetation response to fuel mastication treatments in rare butterfly habitat of the Spring Mountains, Nevada. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 46:6–17.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 86

Cirrus Ecological Solutions. 2017. Survey Report for Lee Canyon Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly Surveys in Clark County Nevada. Las Vegas, Nevada.

DataSmiths. 2007. Report on butterfly surveys at three locations in the Spring Mountains, Clark County, Nevada. Prepared for U.S. Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Emmel, J. F., and O. Shields. 1980. The biology of Plebejus (Icaricia) shasta in the western United States (Lycaenidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 17:129–140.

Erfanian, M. B., H. Ejtehadi, J. Vaezi, H. Moazzeni, F. Memariani, and M. Firouz‐Jahantigh. 2019. Plant community responses to environmentally friendly piste management in northeast Iran. Ecology and Evolution 9:8193–8200.

Ferris, C. D., and F. M. Brown. 1981. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Gulley K. 2018. Personal communication. Email from Katy Gulley, Forest Service District Ecologist, to Matt Westover, Cirrus Wildlife Biologist, regarding rage wide acreage of MCBB habitat.Herrmann, C. 2014. Effects of the Carpenter 1 Fire on the Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Plebejus shasta charlestonensis) and its habitat. Directorate Resources Assistant Fellow, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Herrmann, C. R. 2017. Living on the edge: assessing the effects of catastrophic fire on plants utilized by two endemic subspecies of Spring Mountains butterflies. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Kašák, J., M. Mazalová, J. Šipoš, and T. Kuras. 2013. The effect of alpine ski-slopes on epigeic beetles: does even a nature-friendly management make a change? Journal of Insect Conservation 17:975–988.

Keßler, T., A. Cierjacks, R. Ernst, and F. Dziock. 2012. Direct and indirect effects of ski run management on alpine Orthoptera. Biodiversity and Conservation 21:281–296.

Kingsley, K. J. 2007. Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Icaricia shasta charlestonensis): observations and speculations - 2007. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

Pinyon. 2011. Final project report of butterfly monitoring and inventories Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Clark County, Nevada. Prepared by Andrea Sever (PINYON Environmental Engineering Resources, Inc) for Desert Conservation Program, Project #2005-PINYON-570C, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Rixen, C., M. Freppaz, V. Stoeckli, C. Huovinen, K. Huovinen, and S. Wipf. 2008. Altered Snow Density and Chemistry Change Soil Nitrogen Mineralization and Plant Growth.

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 87

Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 40:568–575.

Rixen, C., and A. Rolando, editors. 2013. The impacts of skiing and related winter recreational activities on mountain environments. Bentham Books, Sharjah, United Arab Emirate.

Rixen, C., V. Stoeckli, and W. Ammann. 2003. Does artificial snow production affect soil and vegetation of ski pistes? A review. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 5:219–230.

Rolando, A., M. Negro, P. P. D’Entrèves, E. Balletto, and C. Palestrini. 2012. The effect of forest ski-pistes on butterfly assemblages in the Alps. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:212–222.

Roux-Fouillet, P., S. Wipf, and C. Rixen. 2011. Long-term impacts of ski piste management on alpine vegetation and soils. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:906–915.

Sato, C. F., J. T. Wood, and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2013. The Effects of Winter Recreation on Alpine and Subalpine Fauna: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 8:e64282.

Scott, J. A. 1986. The butterflies of North America: a natural history and field guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Thompson, D. 2018a. Surveys and habitat assessment of Icaricia shasta charlestonensis (Mount Charleston blue butterfly) in the Spring Mountain Range of Nevada, 2015 - 2017 - Final Report. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Thompson, D. 2018b. Updated MCBB habitat shp file. Email July 19, 2018.

Thompson, D. 2020. Interim report for 2019 surveys; Mount Charleston blue butterfly status surveys 2019-2020 (F19AC00089). Las Vegas, Nevada. 5 pp.

Thompson, D., G. Andrew, P. Jacoby-Garrett, H. Stevens, and S. Abella. 2014. Spring Mountains butterfly autecology final report 2010 to 2012. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. Contract number: AG-9360-S-10-0001. March 30, 2014 revised July 25, 2014.

Thompson, D. B. 2018c. Habitat Characteristics of Icaricia shasta charlestonensis (Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly) in the Spring Mountain Range of Nevada updated December 2018.

Titus, J. H., and F. Landau. 2003. Ski Slope Vegetation of Lee Canyon, Nevada, USA. The Southwestern Naturalist 48:491–504.

U.S. Forest Service. 2016. Mount Charleston blue butterfly survey 2016. Performed for Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Produced by

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 88

Katy Gulley, Great Basin Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada.

U.S. Forest Service. 2017. 2017 Mount Charleston blue butterfly survey. Icaricia shasta spp. charlestonensis. Performed for Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest. November 20, 2017. Produced by Katy Gulley, Las Vegas, Nevada.

U.S. Forest Service. 2018. Draft environmental impact statement: Lee Canyon ski area master development plan phase I. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. 195 pp. Available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/105564_FSPLT3_4403145.pdf.US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2007. 90-day finding on a petition to list the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 72:29933–29941.

U.S. Forest Service. 2019. Final environmental impact statement: Lee Canyon ski area master development plan phase I. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. 267 pp. Available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/105564_FSPLT3_4905314.pdf.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2007. 90-day finding on a petition to list the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 72:29933–29941.

Service. 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 76:12667–12683.

Service. 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed listing of the Mount Charleston blue butterfly as endangered and proposed listing of five blue butterflies as threatened due to similarity of appearance. Federal Register 77:59518–59540.

Service. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered species status for Mount Charleston blue butterfly. Federal Register 78:57750–57775.

Service. 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for Mount Charleston blue butterfly (Icaricia (Plebejus) shasta charlestonensis). Federal Register 80:37404–37430.

Weiss, S. B., A. D. Weiss, D. D. Murphy, and G. T. Austin. 1997. Final report on endemic butterflies of the Spring Mountains. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.

Westover, M. 2019. Biological Assessment for Lee Canyon ski area master development plan - phase 1 and maintenance and ongoing operations at Lee Canyon ski area. Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC. Approved by Kris Boatner. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. 99 p

White, P., B. McGill, and M. Lechowicz. 2011. Human-disturbance and caterpillars in managed

Mr. Dunkelberger (08ENVS00-2019-F-0163.R001) 89

forest fragments. Biodiversity and Conservation 20:1745–1762.

Whiteman, J. P. 2008. Impacts of snow compaction from human recreation on the biota of snow regions. The University of Wyoming.

Wipf, S., and C. Rixen. 2010. A review of snow manipulation experiments in Arctic and alpine tundra ecosystems. Polar Research 29:95–109.

Wipf, S., C. Rixen, M. Fischer, B. Schmid, and V. Stoeckli. 2005. Effects of ski piste preparation on alpine vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:306–316.