DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment Bankline Stabilization and River Control Above Palo Verde Dam

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment Bankline Stabilization and River Control Above Palo Verde Dam Draft Environmental Assessment Bankline Stabilization and River Control above Palo Verde Dam U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2005 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Draft Environmental Assessment Bankline Stabilization and River Control above Palo Verde Dam Yuma Area Office Environmental Group Yuma, Arizona (a) (b) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Area Office Yuma, Arizona June 2005 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACOE Army Corp of Engineers AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department ASU Arizona State University CDFG California Department of Fish and Game cfs cubic feet per second CRFWLS Colorado River Front Work and Levee System CRIT Colorado River Indian Tribes CWA Clean Water Act DOI United States Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment ESA Endangered Species Act ft feet HCP Habitat Conservation Plan LCR Lower Colorado River MSCP Multi species Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation RPM Reasonable and Prudent Measure USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service Bankline Stabilization and River Control Above Palo Verde Dam Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action...................................................................1 1.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Background................................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Purpose of Proposed Action .............................................................. 3 1.3.2 Need for Proposed Action ................................................................. 3 1.4 Scope of Analysis ................................................................................... 4 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered ............................................4 2.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................ 4 2.1.1 Training Structure and Repair Existing Jetty (Phase One)................ 4 2.1.2 Monitoring & Bankline Armor (Phase Two) .................................... 7 2.1.3 Monitoring & Dredging (Phase Three) ............................................. 8 2.2 No Action Alternative........................................................................... 10 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Further Analysis.......... 10 2.3.1 Multiple L-Jetties, Armor Spur Jetty, and Hard Point..................... 10 2.3.2 Sheetpile and Riprap CA Shoreline................................................. 10 2.3.3 Sheetpile CA Shoreline and Cap with Riprap ................................. 10 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................11 3.1 Air Quality............................................................................................ 11 3.1.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 11 3.1.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 12 3.1.4 Mitigation measures ........................................................................ 12 3.2 Geology and Soils................................................................................. 13 3.2.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 13 3.2.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 13 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 13 3.3 Water Resources................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 13 3.3.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 14 3.3.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 15 3.3.4 Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 15 3.4 Biological Resources............................................................................ 15 3.4.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 15 3.4.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 16 3.4.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 17 3.4.4 Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 17 3.5 Special Status Species........................................................................... 17 3.5.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 17 3.5.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 20 3.5.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 21 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 21 3.6 Cultural Resources................................................................................ 22 June 2005 i Bankline Stabilization and River Control Above Palo Verde Dam 3.6.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 22 3.6.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 22 3.6.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 22 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 22 3.7 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................................... 23 3.8 Land Use............................................................................................... 23 3.8.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 23 3.8.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 23 3.8.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 23 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 24 3.9 Socioeconomics .................................................................................... 24 3.9.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 24 3.9.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................. 24 3.9.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ....................................... 24 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures........................................................................ 24 3.10 Environmental Justice........................................................................... 24 3.10.1 Affected Environment..................................................................... 25 3.10.2 Potential Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................ 25 3.10.3 Potential Consequences of the No Action ...................................... 25 3.10.4 Mitigation Measures....................................................................... 25 3.11 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 25 4.0 Coordination and Consultation ..................................................................28 4.1 Agency .................................................................................................. 28 4.2 Tribal..................................................................................................... 28 4.3 Other ..................................................................................................... 29 5.0 References..................................................................................................29 List of Tables Table 3-1 – Special Status Species ........................................................................18 Table 3-2 - Projects Potentially Contributing to Cumulative Effect......................26 List of Figures Figure 1 –Location of the Palo Verde Dam Project Area........................................2 Figure 2 – Phase One Proposed Action ...................................................................6 Figure 3 – Phase Two & Phase Three of the Proposed Action................................9 Figure 4 – Geographic Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis .............................27 List of Appendices Appendix A – Biological Evaluation.................................................................. A-1 Appendix B – Environmental Commitments.......................................................B-1 Appendix C – Alternatives Analysis....................................................................C-1 June 2005 ii Bankline Stabilization and River Control Above Palo Verde Dam 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has prepared
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area
    Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River- Salton Sea Area By BURDGE IRELAN WATER RESOURCES OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER SALTON SEA AREA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72 610761 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Price 50 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract . _.._.-_. ._...._ ..._ _-...._ ...._. ._.._... El Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Introduction .._____. ..... .._..__-. - ._...-._..__..._ _.-_ ._... 2 Imperial Dam, 1961-65 Continued General chemical characteristics of Colorado River Tapeats Creek .._________________.____.___-._____. _ E26 water from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam ____________ 2 Havasu Creek __._____________-...- _ __ -26 Lees Ferry .._._..__.___.______.__________ 4 Virgin River ..__ .-.._..-_ --....-. ._. 26 Grand Canyon ................._____________________..............._... 6 Unmeasured inflow between Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam ..........._._..- -_-._-._................-._._._._... 8 Hoover Dam .__-.....-_ .... .-_ . _. 26 Lake Havasu - -_......_....-..-........ .........._............._.... 11 Chemical changes in Lake Mead ............-... .-.....-..... 26 Imperial Dam .--. ........_. ...___.-_.___ _.__.__.._-_._.___ _ 12 Bill Williams River ......._.._......__.._....._ _......_._- 27 Mineral burden of the lower Colorado River, 1926-65 .
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin
    Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin By H. P. Eisenhuth GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 579 Washington J 968 United States Department of the Interior STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary Geological Survey William T. Pecora, Director Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1967 Part 9 .-Colorado River Basin By H. P. Eisenhuth INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Colorado River basin for which records have been or are to bepublishedinreportsoftheGeological Survey for periods through September 30, 1967. It supersedes Geobgical Survey Circular 509. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1960, the records for the 48 States were pub~.ished annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. The boundaries of the various parts are shown on the map in figure 1. Beginning in 1961, the annual series ofwater-supplypapers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year S<~ries. Records for the period 1961-65 will bepublishedin a series of water-supply papers using the same 14-part division for the 48 States, but most parts will be further subdivided into two or more volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoran Desert Management Questions
    APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Appendix A. Management Questions: Process Models and Results ............................................................ 1 Appendix B. Ecological Systems Conservation Elements: Conceptual and Process Models and Results ... 52 Appendix C. Species Conservation Elements: Conceptual and Process Models and Results ..................... 78 Appendix D. Attributes and Indicators Tables .......................................................................................... 148 Appendix E. Logic Models, Data Sources, Uncertainty Ranking, Results .................................................. 156 Appendix A – Sonoran Desert Management Questions Organization of Appendix A The following sources and results are provided for each management question: a conceptual model and/or a Process Model and a description of the analytical process (including source data) for each management question and results in the form of maps and other supporting graphics. Access to a data portal to examine the results in greater detail is available at the BLM website: 30Thttp://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/ climatechange.html. Sonoran Desert REA Final Report II-3-c APPENDICES Page 1 A. Soils, Biological Crust, and Forage Management MQ A1. Where are soils susceptible to wind and water erosion? Process Model: Wind Erosion Sonoran Desert REA Final Report II-3-c APPENDICES Page 2 Process Model: Water Erosion Sonoran Desert REA Final Report II-3-c APPENDICES Page 3 Results for Soils Susceptible to Wind and Water Erosion MQ A1. Where are soils susceptible to wind and water erosion? Sonoran Desert REA Final Report II-3-c APPENDICES Page 4 A. Soils, Biological Crust, and Forage Management MQ A2. Where are sensitive soils (including saline, sodic, gypsiferous, shallow, low water holding capacity)? Process Model Sonoran Desert REA Final Report II-3-c APPENDICES Page 5 Results for Sensitive Soils All Types MQ A2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Method for Estimating Ground-Water Return Flow to the Colorado River in the Parker Area, Arizona and California
    A method for estimating ground-water return flow to the Colorado River in the Parker area, Arizona and California Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text Authors Leake, Stanley Alan. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 27/09/2021 21:21:44 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/191832 A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING GROUND-WATER RETURN FLOW TO THE COLORADO RIVER IN THE PARKER AREA, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA by Stanley Alan Leake A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN HYDROLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1984 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of require- ments for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotations from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate School when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply Assessment
    DESERT QUARTZITE SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX Y WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESERT QUARTZITE SOLAR PROJECT RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PURCHASE ORDER 4800019091 Prepared for: Desert Quartzite, LLC 135 Main Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Prepared by: URS(an AECOM company) 130 Robin Hill Road, Suite 100 Santa Barbara, California 93117 (805) 692-0600 Fax: (805) 964-0259 Job No. 60486157 June 2016 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT DESERT QUARTZITE SOLAR PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 WATER REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 2-1 3.0 PROJECT WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ............................................................... 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ...................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Description of the Palo Verde Mesa Groundwater Basin ........................ 3-1 3.2.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Special Provisions
    08 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOTICE TO BIDDERS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON STATE HIGHWAY IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS FROM 4 MILES NORTH OF PALO VERDE DAM ROAD TO 0.6 MILE SOUTH OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE In District 08 On Route 95 Under Bid book dated September 8, 2020 Standard Specifications dated 2018 Project plans approved May 6, 2020 Standard Plans dated 2018 Identified by Contract No. 08-1G0004 08-Riv-95-14.5/35.6 Project ID 0815000107 Federal -Aid Project ACST -S095(036)E Bids open Wednesday, October 14, 2020 Dated September 8, 2020 ************************************************************************************************************************ SPECIAL NOTICES ************************************************************************************************************************ • See sections 2 and 3 for contractors' registration requirements. • The schedules for the submittal of DBE forms have been revised. See section 2-1.33 for the submittal schedules. • The Department advises bidders that potential claim records must be submitted by the contractor using the Department's Internet potential claim system. • See section 2 for submittal requirements for DBE quotes, DVBE quotes, and Non–Small Business Subcontractor Preference. • For work plan for local material from (1) a noncommercial source or (2) a source not regulated under California jurisdiction, see section 6-1.03B(1). • See section 7-1.02K(3) for the requirements for electronic submittal of certified payroll records
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Reclamation Projects Collection
    TITLE: Colorado River Reclamation Projects DATE RANGE: 1825-1992 CALL NUMBER: Y-MS61 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: PROVENANCE: Donated serially by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and individuals who worked on the projects. COPYRIGHT: The Arizona Historical Society owns the copyright to this collection. RESTRICTIONS: This collection is unrestricted. CREDIT LINE: Colorado River Reclamation Projects, Y-MS61, Arizona Historical Society- Rio Colorado Division. PROCESSED BY: Todd Anselmo, 2014 and Aiyana Irwin 2015 HISTORICAL NOTE: The Colorado River Reclamation Projects (CRRP) collection provides detailed information and photo documentation on four projects: the Yuma Project, the Yuma Auxiliary Project, the Gila Project, and the Parker-Davis Project. It documents the “taming” of the Colorado River in the largest irrigation project ever attempted in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) initiatives on the Lower Colorado River were developed to deliver water consistently and safely to Southwestern and Central Arizona, Southeastern California and Mexico and provided electrical power to Arizona, California, and Nevada. The water harnessed and diverted as result of these projects opened up large and prosperous agriculture land in Arizona and Southern California. It also provided water and electrical power to settlers and businesses in the Southwest. The Yuma Project, which began in 1905, was created to provide to two divisions. The Reservation Division, which included the Arizona towns of Yuma, Somerton, and Gadsden, and the Valley Division, which included the California towns of Bard and Winterhaven. The Yuma Project constructed the Laguna Diversion Dam on the Colorado River, the Boundary Pumping Plant, a power plant, and a system of canals, laterals, and drains.
    [Show full text]
  • Law of the River Resource Guide
    LAW OF THE RIVER RESOURCE GUIDE January 2018 The information provided in this guide has been compiled by IID staff for reference or educational purposes. These documents have been created by other public and private organizations. LAW OF THE RIVER_____________ TABLE OF CONTENTS IID Presentation to the Board of Directors, January 30, 2018 3 The Colorado River Compact of 1922 31 The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 35 California Seven Party Agreement of 1931 45 IID-CVWD 1934 Compromise Agreement 49 The Arizona v. California U.S. Supreme Court Decision of 1964 63 Bryant v Yellen 71 Affirming Decision 1600 and Denying Petitions for Reconsideration, 91 September 1984 State Water Board Revised Order WRO 2002-0013, November 2017 119 (Salton Sea) Page 3 PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT THE LAW OF THE RIVER “Concededly, nothing in § 14, in § 46, or in the reclamation law in general would excuse the Secretary from recognizing his obligation to satisfy present perfected rights in Imperial Valley that were provided for by Art. VIII of the Compact and § 6 of the Project Act and adjudicated by this Court in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963).” Justice Byron White THE LAW OF THE COLORADO RIVER AND PRESERVATION OF IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT’S PRESENT PERFECTED WATER RIGHTS January 30, 2018 IID A century of service. Page 4 INTRODUCTION Thousands of words have been written about the “Law of the Colorado River.” In a case decided last week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal judge referred to this complex set of laws as byzantine.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights of the Geologic Evolution of the Colorado River Extensional Corridor and Its River: a Field Guide Honoring the Life and Legacy of Warren Hamilton
    The Geological Society of America Field Guide 55 A river is born: Highlights of the geologic evolution of the Colorado River extensional corridor and its river: A field guide honoring the life and legacy of Warren Hamilton Keith A. Howard* U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA P. Kyle House* U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, USA Barbara E. John* Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Ryan S. Crow* U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, USA Philip A. Pearthree* Arizona Geological Survey, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85701, USA ABSTRACT The Colorado River extensional corridor, which stretched by a factor of 2 in the Miocene, left a series of lowland basins and intervening bedrock ranges that, at the dawn of the Pliocene, were flooded by Colorado River water newly diverted from the Colorado Plateau through Grand Canyon. This water and subsequent sediment gave birth, through a series of overflowing lakes, to an integrated Colorado River flowing to the newly opened Gulf of California. Topock Gorge, which the river now follows between the Chemehuevi and Mohave Mountains, is a major focus of this field guide, as it very nicely exposes structural, stratigraphic, and magmatic aspects of the Miocene extensional corridor, a core complex, and detachment faults as well as a pre-Cenozoic batholith. Topock Gorge also is the inferred site of a paleodivide between early Pliocene basins of newly arrived Colorado River water.
    [Show full text]
  • Palo Verde Diversion Project History
    Palo Verde Diversion Project Lara Bickell Bureau of Reclamation 1999 Table of Contents Palo Verde Diversion Dam ......................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................2 Prehistoric Setting .................................................2 Historic Setting ...................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................6 Construction History .....................................................7 Schedule One: The Dam ............................................7 Schedule Two: The Levee System.....................................9 Post-Construction History................................................12 Settlement of the Project .................................................12 Uses of Project Water ...................................................13 Conclusion............................................................13 About the Author .............................................................13 Bibliography ................................................................14 Archival Collections ....................................................14 Government Documents .................................................14 Articles...............................................................14 Books ................................................................14 Index ......................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • The Lower Colorado River
    Lost, A Desert River and its Native Fishes: A Historical Perspective of the Lower Colorado River By Gordon A. Mueller U.S. Geological Survey P.O. Box 25007, D-8220 Denver, CO 80225-0007 and Paul C. Marsh Arizona State University Department of Biology Box 871501 Tempe, AZ 85287-1501 Abstract. The Colorado River had one of the most unique fish communities in the world. Seventy-five percent of those species were found no where else in the world. Settlement of the lower basin brought dramatic changes to both the river and its native fish. Those changes began more than 120 years ago as settlers began stocking nonnative fishes. By 1930, nonnative fish had spread throughout the lower basin and replaced native communities. All resemblance of historic river conditions faded with the construction of Hoover Dam in 1935 and other large water development projects. Today, few remember what the Colorado River was really like. Seven of the nine mainstream fishes are now federally protected as endangered. Federal and state agencies are attempting to recover these fish; however, progress has been frustrated due to the severity of human impact. This report presents testimony, old descriptions, and photographs describing the changes that have taken place in hopes that it will provide managers, biologists, and the interested public a better appreciation of the environment that shaped these unique fish. Key Words: Colorado River, history, impacts, lower basin, native fish. Introduction resemble canals and deliver reservoir water to farms and cities in Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, Yuma, and Mexico. The waters of the Colorado River have been used by Native fish have paid a high price for humans‘ un- humans for more than 11,000 years.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX a Species Covered by the HCP APPENDIX a Species Covered by the HCP
    APPENDIX A Species Covered by the HCP APPENDIX A Species Covered by the HCP Invertebrates Cheeseweed Moth Lacewing (Oliarces clara) Range and Distribution The cheeseweed moth lacewing has been documented from Yuma County in western Arizona; Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties in Southern California; and Clark County, Nevada. Collections of the moth lacewing have been made from sea level in Imperial County to 100 meters (m) (328 feet) elevation in Riverside County (Faulkner, 1990; Faulkner personal communication). The range of the species may be much more extensive than its documented range, correlating to some extent with the range of its larval host plant, creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) (Faulkner personal communication). Population Status This species is rarely observed in the field. However, in 1964, a massive emergence occurred near Palm Springs, with hundreds of individuals present (Faulkner, 1990). The cheeseweed moth lacewing is a federal species of concern (former category 2 candidate for federal listing). Although infrequently observed, the moth lacewing may exist at many undocumented sites throughout the arid southwest region of the United States. The fleeting, localized nature of adult emergence complicates efforts to assess the population status of this species. Habitat Requirements The larval stage is associated with creosote bush, a desert shrub found throughout much of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico (Faulkner, 1990). All collections of mature larvae and egg cases have produced specimens that were found inhabiting the root mass of this plant (USBR, 1996). Adult emergence from soils near creosote bushes often follows winters of high precipitation, and is fleeting and localized, lasting no longer than 4 days (Faulkner personal communication).
    [Show full text]