APPENDIX D

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR PHASE III MOSS MINE EXPANSION AND EXPLORATION PROJECT

Prepared for:

2440 Adobe Road – Bullhead City, Arizona 86442 Project Number: 1203.05 March 13, 2020

WestLand Resources, Inc.  4001 E. Paradise Falls Drive  Tucson, Arizona 85712  5202069585

Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 1 3. ANALYSIS AREA DESCRIPTION ...... 8 3.1. Physiographic Setting ...... 9 3.2. Surface Water Features ...... 9 3.3. Abandoned Mine Features ...... 12 3.4. Soils ...... 12 3.5. Vegetation ...... 13 3.6. Wildlife ...... 16 3.7. Wildlife Linkages ...... 17 3.8. Land Use ...... 17 4. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES SCREENING ANALYSIS METHODS ...... 18 4.1. Special-Status Species Identification ...... 18 4.2. Special-Status Species Screening ...... 18 5. EFFECTS ANALYSIS ...... 19 5.1. Surface Disturbance ...... 19 5.2. Lighting ...... 20 5.3. Noise and Vibration ...... 20 5.4. Dust ...... 21 5.5. Traffic ...... 21 5.6. Groundwater Pumping ...... 22 5.7. Pit Lake...... 22 6. SPECIAL-STATUS AND BLM REQUESTED SPECIES SCREENING RESULTS ...... 23 6.1. Effects to Species Known to Occur within the Analysis Area ...... 38 6.1.1. Desert Bighorn Sheep ...... 38 6.1.2. Desert Tortoise ...... 39 6.1.3. Cavern Obligate Bats ...... 41 6.1.4. Migratory Birds ...... 41 7. REFERENCES ...... 44

TABLES

Table 1. Proposed Disturbance by Land Status ...... 3 Table 2. Plant Species Observed in the Analysis Area during Field Reconnaissance ...... 14 Table 3. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of ESA Listed Species within the Analysis Area ...... 24 Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area ...... 26 Table 5. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Requested Species within the Analysis Area ...... 34 Table 6. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Species within the Analysis Area ...... 37

WestLand Resources, Inc. ii

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

FIGURES (follow text)

Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Analysis Area Figure 3. Springs in the Vicinity of the Analysis Area Figure 4. Mount Perkins-Warm Springs Wildlife Linkage and Proposed Phase III Moss Mine footprint Figure 5. Bighorn Sheep Habitat Categories in the Vicinity of the Analysis Area Figure 6. BLM Desert Tortoise Habitat Categories and Observations in the Vicinity of the Analysis Area

APPENDICES

Appendix A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation Report Online Query Results Appendix B. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona – Bureau Sensitive Species List (February 2017) Appendix C. Representative Photographs of Analysis Area Appendix D. Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System Online Query Results Appendix E. HabiMap Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas Species Appendix F. Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area Appendix G. Custom Soil Resource Report for Mohave County, Arizona, Southern Part Golden Vertex Moss Mine Biological Analysis Area

WestLand Resources, Inc. iii

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

1. INTRODUCTION

Golden Vertex Corp (Golden Vertex) is proposing to expand exploration activities and mining operations onto lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as part of the Moss Mine Phase III Project (the Project). The Moss Mine is situated east of Bullhead City in Mohave County, Arizona (Figure 1). WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand), was retained by Golden Vertex to develop a Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Project to evaluate the potential for special-status species to occur within the vicinity of the Project and determine the potential effects of proposed activities on biological resources. The Analysis Area is approximately 7,500 acres and includes the proposed mining and exploration activities of the Moss Mine Project plus a buffer of at least 500 feet (152 meters [m]) surrounding proposed areas of surface disturbance.

For the purpose of this report, special-status species is defined as species designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as Endangered, Threatened, Proposed for listing, or Candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Appendix A), those species designated as sensitive by the BLM Colorado River District (Appendix B), species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and species recently identified by the BLM as being of conservation and management interest in the vicinity of the Project.

The following sections: provide a description of the Project (Section 2), identify and describe the current conditions of the Analysis Area for the BE (Section 3), describe the methods used to analyze potential effects to special-status species (Section 4), determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the Analysis Area and the potential effects of the Project on special-status species (Section 5), discuss the effects to species known to occur within the Analysis Area (Section 6), and list the references cited (Section 7).

2. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Moss Mine is an existing open pit gold and silver operation located in Mohave County, Arizona (latitude: 35° 06’ 00” N/longitude: 114° 26’ 52” W), 9 miles east of the Colorado River on the western slope of the Black Mountains. The mine is approximately 8 miles east of State Highway 95, and approximately 4 miles east of the city limits of Bullhead City, Arizona. The town of Oatman, Arizona is located 8 miles southeast of the mine. Moss Mine lies within portions of Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30 of Township 20 North, Range 20 West of the Gila and Salt River Meridian (Figures 1 and 2).

A detailed description of the existing operation (Phases I and II) and the planned expansion (Phase III) of the Project is provided in Section 1.0 of the Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project, Final Mine Plan of Operations, Mohave County, Arizona (MPO; Golden Vertex 2019), which is currently under review by the BLM. Portions of that description are provided as follows.

Golden Vertex activities to date have mainly focused on the exploration of the Moss Vein and their associated stockworks that contain gold and silver mineralization of interest. The target mineralization

WestLand Resources, Inc. 1

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

is contained within a central area of 15 patented lode claims (254 acres; see Table 2 of the MPO), as well as east and west of the patented claims that occur on BLM managed lands. From 2013 to 2014, Golden Vertex’s primary focus was on its Phase I Pilot Plant activities [Phase I] that were comprised of open pit mining, on-site heap leaching and processing. All Phase I activities were completed during the fourth quarter of 2014 (Golden Vertex 2019).

Golden Vertex is currently in the second phase [Phase II] of mining that involves the mining and processing of ores wholly contained within the patented land boundaries that could be mined and processed without encroaching on federal lands. Phase II encompasses mining, crushing, agglomeration and stacking of ore onto a conventional heap leach pad. Phase II gold and silver recovery from the leach solution is being achieved by a Merrill Crowe process to produce doré bars at the mine. Golden Vertex currently anticipates that capacity at the Phase II barren rock stockpile will be exceeded by December 2019 and would necessitate the expansion of the existing barren rock stockpile onto federal lands and the initiation of Phase III mining (Golden Vertex 2019).

Open pit mining activities at Moss Mine under Phase I and II include: 1) Extracting ore from open pits that includes the use of explosives to fragment rock 2) Crushing of ore 3) Stacking ore on heap leach pad 4) Piling of barren rock on stockpiles 5) Recovering the gold and silver from the leach solution through the Merrill Crowe process

Operational components of mining operations at Moss Mine under Phase I and II include: 1) Haul and access roads 2) Stormwater diversion facilities 3) Water supply and transmission water (i.e., water wells/pipelines) 4) Miscellaneous storage yard areas 5) Core shack and assay lab 6) Other supporting infrastructure and ancillary equipment

The MPO entails a third phase (Phase III) of the project with an expansion of existing operations on private property and BLM land (Golden Vertex 2019). These activities include: 1) Expanding the existing mining operations onto BLM managed land 2) Developing an expanded heap leach pad and constructing required barren rock stockpiles, solutions ponds, and other project related infrastructure and buildings on BLM managed land 3) Exploratory drilling and associated roads on BLM managed land 4) Reclaiming disturbed areas on private and BLM managed lands

WestLand Resources, Inc. 2

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

5) Implementing Environmental Protection Measures on private and BLM managed lands that are intended to mitigate potential adverse natural resource impacts associated with implementing the Project

The total surface disturbance associated with the Project is 555.40 acres (the Project Area), 497.10 acres of which is on BLM lands (Table 1). Expanded facilities include a heap leach pad to be extended west of the existing leach pad (T20N, R20W, Sec19 and Sec30; and T20N, R21W, S25), barren rock stockpiles (T20N, R20W, Sec29 and Sec30; and T20N, R21W, Sec24 and Sec25), and open pits (T20N, R 21W, Sec24; and T20N, R20W, Sec19, Sec20, and Sec29) (Figure 2). Proposed new exploration roads and drill sites will disturb approximately 110.31 acres of BLM lands (Table 1).

Table 1. Proposed Disturbance by Land Status Disturbance (Acres) Facility BLM Private Total Exploration Estimated Exploratory Roads and Drill Sites within Six Exploration Areas1 110.31 0 110.31 Open Pit Proposed Far Western Pit 16.70 0 16.70 Proposed Eastern Pit 84.55 1.20 85.75 Ancillary Facilities Proposed Heap Leach Pad (approximate height above ground elevation 75–115 ft) 109.0 14.95 123.95 Proposed Heap Leach Pad buffer/road 0.75 0 0.75 Proposed Pregnant and Event Ponds 4.20 0 4.20 Proposed Barren Pond 1.19 0.90 2.09 Proposed Barren Rock Stockpile West/Temporary Growth Medium Storage 15.50 0 (approximate height above ground elevation 195–210 ft) 15.50 Proposed Barren Rock Stockpile West Buffer/Road 2.50 0 2.50 Proposed Barren Rock Stockpile East 111.75 23.70 (approximate height above ground elevation 170 ft) 135.45 Proposed Barren Rock Stockpile East Buffer/Road 5.80 4.10 9.90 Proposed Assay Lab/Core Shack 2.01 0.21 2.21 Proposed Maintenance Shop/Office Complex 10.98 0 10.98 Proposed Municipal Source Water Pipeline (4- to 6-inch diameter)2 14.32 13.25 27.57 Proposed Water Wells (6), Monitoring Wells (3), and Water Well Pipeline3 6.38 0 6.38 Proposed 7717 Bypass Route 1.16 0 1.16 Totals 497.10 58.31 555.40 1 Acreage includes Arizona State Land Department-owned land because BLM has subsurface rights. 2 The proposed municipal source water pipeline would be co-located with BLM-approved 24.9 kV power line right-of-way (ROW) (BLM AZ 037253). This proposed water pipeline would consist of 4-to 6-inch pipeline and includes 0.91 miles along BLM Road 7717, 0.82 miles along BLM 7922, and 1.91 miles along Silver Creek Road, for a total of 3.64 miles on BLM land. The proposed water pipeline disturbance was calculated using an average 33-ft wide ROW corridor. The approved 24.9-kV power line area of disturbance (approximately 2.86 acres on BLM land) is not provided in Table 1 because the ROW has already been approved by the BLM. The power line is discussed in the MPO because it is closely associated with Phase III activities. The power line disturbance area was calculated to be 20 percent of the water pipeline disturbance on BLM land based on the following: the power line would be built using existing roads within the same corridor as the water pipeline, and ground-disturbing activities would consist primarily of utility pole placement and power line tensioning/pulling sites. Reclamation associated with construction of the power line has been previously defined within the BLM Grant of ROW and will be implemented as directed by the BLM.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 3

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

3 The proposed water well pipeline would consist of 4- to 6-inch pipeline along BLM 7177 to convey groundwater from the three proposed water wells south of Moss Mine. The proposed water well pipeline disturbance was calculated using a 35-ft temporary disturbance corridor.

Golden Vertex has incorporated Environmental Protection Measures into the Project that include measures to minimize impacts to wildlife and vegetation resources, as well as provide a benefit to habitat for wildlife species. These measures are provided in MPO Appendix R Section 3.0 (Golden Vertex 2019).

Migratory Birds a. Should construction be scheduled during the breeding/fledgling season for migratory birds (February 1 to August 31), a biologist would perform a nest survey within a 150-foot radius of the construction areas prior to construction. GVC would provide a breeding bird survey report to the Authorized Officer with information regarding incidental nest destruction of migratory birds. b. To the extent practicable, buffers would be placed around active nests to avoid disturbance based on bird group type: 100-foot buffer for ground/burrow nesters; 1,200-foot buffer for raptors; and 50-foot buffer for all other species. c. Nest surveys would be conducted every two weeks during the migratory bird breeding season in undisturbed areas. d. Burrowing Owl clearance surveys would be conducted prior to construction, following the Burrowing Owl Project Clearance Guidance for Landowners ((Arizona Burrowing Owl Working Group 2009)). e. Inactive nests (i.e., those with no eggs or nestlings) will be removed, if appropriate. Flagging would be placed around the location to discourage re-nesting at the location. f. Should an active nest require removal because of planned activities, a qualified biologist will coordinate with USFWS and BLM and transport eggs or chicks to a federally-permitted wildlife rehabilitator or licensed veterinarian per provisions described in USFWS memorandum FWS/DMBD/AMB/068029.

Desert Bighorn Sheep a. GVC would coordinate with BLM and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) for installation of up to two water catchments for wildlife, including bighorn sheep, at suitable locations outside of designated wilderness areas if the need is identified. b. The placement of water catchments and associated infrastructure, such as fencing around catchments, would be determined in collaboration with BLM and AZGFD in order to benefit wildlife, including bighorn sheep, while reducing the unintended consequence of attracting wildlife closer to mining and construction activities. c. GVC would be responsible for the maintenance of water catchments during the period of active mining operations.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 4

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

d. GVC would install desert tortoise exclusion fencing along the leach pad area and process ponds, which would also exclude sheep from these areas.

Desert Tortoise a. GVC would designate a mitigation coordinator trained on desert tortoise handling procedures who would be responsible for documentation of completion of mitigation measures and reporting of any incidental injuries or deaths of desert tortoise. b. GVC would conduct annual Worker Environmental Awareness Program training for mine employees and contractors on the mitigation measures and handling procedures for desert tortoise. c. Desert tortoise exclusion fencing would be installed around the heap leach pad and process ponds. d. Ground-disturbing activities associated with exploration drilling within the Far Western Extension Area would not occur within Category II desert tortoise habitat. e. A pre-construction desert tortoise survey by a trained biologist would be required in all desert tortoise habitat no earlier than 45 days (preferably no earlier than two weeks) prior to construction/ground-disturbing activities to identify burrows or other high-use areas. During these surveys, the status of previous survey results would be reviewed, and habitat features such as desert tortoise burrows would be flagged and staked. Habitat features outside but within 100 feet of the construction/ground-disturbance boundaries that may be inadvertently damaged or destroyed by construction activities also would be prominently flagged and staked to alert work crews to their presence. Pre-construction methods are as follows:

All locations of desert tortoise or their sign found during surveys would be mapped on a 7½-minute quadrangle topographic map with township, range, section and quarter section; date; observer’s name; vegetation type; and GPS coordinates noted. Copies of this information would be given to the BLM authorized officer and to the AZGFD Heritage Data Base Manager in Phoenix. Within 48 hours of or prior to onset of construction/ground-disturbing activities, the area within desert tortoise habitat that is subject to immediate disturbance would be inspected by a qualified biologist for desert tortoise and their burrows. Desert tortoise would be moved less than 48 hours in advance of the habitat disturbance so they do not return to the area in the interim. To the extent practicable, GVC and contractors would make an effort to avoid damage to or destruction of desert tortoise burrows during construction activities. GVC would follow AZGFD guidelines for handling or collecting desert tortoise prior to construction or ground-disturbing activities (AZGFD 2010 and 2014). Every desert tortoise handled would be checked for upper respiratory disease. A scope or similar device would be used to determine if deep burrows contain desert tortoise.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 5

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

f. For construction activities during the desert tortoise active period (February 15 to November 15), a walking clearance of working areas (around equipment, within trenches, etc.) would be performed every morning to check for tortoise. All trenches would be constructed with an escape ramp such that desert tortoise that enter the trench have an exit path and do not become trapped in the trench. g. GVC has established a speed limit of 15 mph within the Mine Safety and Health Administration-controlled mine facility and along roads used for exploration. Should a desert tortoise be encountered on roadways, traffic will stop until the tortoise is moved or is no longer on the road surface. h. GVC would assist in the restoration of desert tortoise habitat within the MPO area by addressing threats to the species from abandoned mine features (i.e., open mine shafts/pits):

GVC would map all mine features within those portions of the MPO area in which they are conducting mining or exploration activities. To the extent practicable, GVC would install desert tortoise fencing around abandoned mine shafts encountered in exploration areas or close these features after exclusion of bats. GVC would coordinate with BLM on appropriate procedures for closure of any abandoned mine features. GVC would install a grate over the shaft on the Ivanhoe claim owned by GVC to preclude desert tortoise entrance.

i. GVC would install signage along major travel (on non-County/non-City roads) and off- highway vehicle (OHV) roads to alert the public of desert tortoise and their habitat. j. GVC would block new exploration access roads as practicable and in coordination with and under the direction of the BLM, to limit unauthorized OHV use in desert tortoise habitat. k. GVC would follow good housekeeping practices and install trash cans that have self-securing lids to minimize the attraction of desert tortoise predators, such as ravens. l. Pet dogs would be prohibited during construction, operation, exploration and reclamation activities associated with the proposed project. m. The proposed 4–6-inch water pipeline along Silver Creek Road, BLM Road 7922, and BLM Road 7717 would be buried at regular intervals such that the pipeline does not constitute a barrier to movement for desert tortoise.

Other Wildlife Harassment of livestock, wildlife, or burros would be prohibited. GVC will report wildlife encounters during exploratory drilling to the BLM. GVC would coordinate with BLM and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) for installation of up to two water catchments for wildlife, including bighorn sheep, at suitable locations outside of designated wilderness areas if the need is identified.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 6

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

The placement and of water catchments and associated infrastructure, such as fencing around catchments, would be determined in collaboration with BLM and AZGFD in order to benefit wildlife, while reducing the unintended consequence of attracting wildlife closer to mining and construction activities. In order to minimize the effects of light on wildlife at night, lights would be directed down, toward the interior of the project site All proposed lighting would be located to avoid light pollution onto any adjacent lands as viewed from a distance. All lighting fixtures would be hooded and shielded, face downward, and directed on to the pertinent site only. Where practicable, water sources would be used to benefit bat species by utilizing concepts and designs described in Water for Wildlife: A Handbook for Ranchers and Range Managers (Taylor and Tuttle 2007). Should large bat mortality events attributable to GVC activities occur, GVC would coordinate with AZGFD and BLM regarding the potential placement of water sources to benefit bats. GVC has included other measures in the MPO to minimize effects on wildlife, including site fencing and signage for site security and to prevent wildlife entrapment and mortality. GVC and contractor employees are sent out prior to and during blasting to serve as guards to ensure no humans or wildlife encroach into the blasting area. The project site has been fenced to restrict access to the public and OHVs; this primary fencing would also minimize wildlife access into the mine site. The heap, ponds, and other facilities containing cyanide (adjacent to the Merrill-Crowe plant) have secondary fencing to restrict wildlife access to these areas. If the water level in open pits were to rise above the level of the barren rock backfill, wildlife could access to the water. To manage this potential, open pits would be bermed and fenced to prevent terrestrial wildlife access to steep walls and slopes. Safe access to the pit by wildlife would be possible down the final pit roads. Water quality within a potential pit lake would be monitored.

Vegetation GVC would follow the noxious weed management plan (Section 15.10 in the MPO [GVC 2019]) to limit and control the spread of invasive weeds, including:

Educating all construction personnel regarding problem areas identified and the importance of preventative measures and treatment methods; Specific preventative measures to prevent the spread of noxious weeds; and Pre- and post-construction treatment methods to be applied to areas of noxious weed infestation. Native vegetation would be left in place wherever possible. Reclamation practices would entail concurrent reclamation, when possible, and use of a native seed mix approved by the BLM.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 7

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

If practicable, special status species that are discovered within areas to be disturbed will be transplanted. To the extent practicable, GVC will notify salvage operators/permit holders to allow for native plant salvage prior to scheduled disturbance of the heap leach pad, barren waste rock stockpiles, and pit expansion areas. Salvage operators/permit holders would be required to contact GVC and schedule site entry to address safety concerns. The area considered for salvage would not include lands within 500 feet of mining or construction activities.

Soils Where practicable, GVC would avoid developing exploration roads on soils with high clay content and would avoid traveling on all exploration roads in wet weather to minimize degradation of the road surface. Construction activities would be restricted when the soil is too wet to adequately support construction or maintenance equipment (i.e., when heavy equipment creates ruts in excess of 5 inches deep over 100 feet or more in wet or saturated soils). Best management practices would be implemented to minimize the effects of grading, excavation, and other surface disturbances on soils. Topsoil stockpiles would be oriented in the direction of the prevailing wind, as far as practicable, to minimize windblown dust.

Springs A qualified biologist would perform quarterly monitoring of the following six springs within the study area using BLM standard methods for assessment of proper functioning condition described in TR 1737-16 (Prichard et al. 2003): i. Silver Creek Spring, ii. Upper Silver Creek Spring, iii. Secret Pass Spring, iv. Upper Bighorn Spring, v. Grapevine Spring, and vi. Whiskey Spring.

3. ANALYSIS AREA DESCRIPTION

WestLand established an Analysis Area surrounding the proposed activities (Figure 2), within which potential effects of the Project to biological resources were evaluated. The Analysis Area is approximately 7,500 acres and includes the proposed mining and exploration activities within the Project Area plus a buffer of at least 500 feet (152 m) surrounding proposed areas of surface disturbance. Because traffic along Silver Creek Road is anticipated to increase as a result of proposed short-term construction activities, the Analysis Area also includes the portion of Silver Creek Road from BLM Road 7717 to the western boundary of BLM administered lands.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 8

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

WestLand performed several site visits to the Analysis Area to collect information on the presence of special-status and BLM requested species, habitat characteristics, and the overall physiographic and environmental setting of the Analysis Area. WestLand and the BLM conducted additional investigations of the habitat and vegetation characteristics of spring locations within the Analysis Area and several spring locations adjacent to the Analysis Area within the Mount Nutt Wilderness Area. Based on these observations, literature searches, and data provided by the BLM and AGFD biological sources, both the BLM and AGFD determined that species-specific surveys were not warranted.

3.1. PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Analysis Area is located within the Basin and Range physiographic province, which is characterized by a series of northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys (Chronic 1983, Fernald 1897). The Analysis Area (Appendix C, Photo 1) is located on the western foothills of the Black Mountain Range, at an elevation ranging from approximately 1,500 feet (457 m) to approximately 2,700 feet (820 m) above mean sea level (amsl) (Figure 1). The geomorphology of the Analysis Area ranges from alluvial fans, such as Silver Creek Wash, to steeper terrain towards the Black Mountains on the eastern edge of the Analysis Area. Rugged terrain, isolated buttes, and drainages with short stretches of steep canyon walls (20-50 m high) are present in the northeastern portions of the Analysis Area and adjacent to existing mining operations (Appendix C, Photo 2).

Climatic conditions within the Project Area are characterized by hot summers (106.9˚F average temperature of hottest month), mild winters (40.6˚F average temperature of coldest month), and low rainfall (6.4 inches/year). The majority of precipitation occurs in the winter months (Weather Underground 2019)1.

3.2. SURFACE WATER FEATURES

Drainages within the Analysis Area are limited to small erosional and ephemeral features; no perennial waterways, wetlands or springs are present in the Project Area (MPO Section 7.4). However, Silver Creek and Upper Silver Creek Springs do occur within the Analysis Area (Figure 3). The general lack of riparian vegetation and upland-associated species within the drainages in the Analysis Area indicate that they only flow ephemerally (Appendix C, Photos 3 and 4).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has mapped six springs within 4 miles of Moss Mine (Figure 3). There are two mapped springs on the eastern portion of the Analysis Area, Silver Creek Spring and Upper Silver Creek Spring. There are four mapped springs in the Mount Nutt Wilderness Area outside of the Analysis Area but within 4 miles: Secret Pass Spring, Upper and Lower Bighorn Spring complex, Whiskey Spring, and Grapevine Canyon Spring. The following provides a summary of the known

1 Weather Underground website accessed October 28, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 9

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

condition of each spring based on BLM and WestLand observations. BLM visited selected springs occasionally from the 1980s to the present. WestLand conducted vegetation diversity surveys at four of these springs (Silver Creek Spring, Upper Silver Creek spring, Secret Pass Spring and Grapevine Canyon Spring) on May 16, 2019. A vegetation species list for these four springs is provided in Table 2.

Silver Creek Spring Silver Creek Spring is situated within the Analysis Area along Silver Creek, just north of a proposed exploration area. BLM visited this spring in September 1981 and October 1990. Flow was described as perennial; a flow rate of 12.68 gallons per minute (gpm) was measured in 1981 but a flow rate was not measured in 1990. Vegetation observed by BLM included tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and graminoids. Wildlife recorded by the BLM included bighorn sheep and birds, along with wild burros (Equus africanus asinus). WestLand’s visit in May 2019 noted that this spring is within an alluvial channel, and at that time, water was pooled above and below an old dam structure. Vegetation near the surface water was minimal and dominated by occasional tamarisk and honey mesquite. Seven native species were detected: brittlebush (Encelia farinose), honey mesquite, catclaw acacia (Senegalia greggii), desert senna (Senna sp.), mountain pink (Zeltnera sp.), rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), wild tobacco (Nicotiana obtusifolia); and two non-native species: tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and tamarisk. As noted during WestLand’s visit, this area is used heavily by burros, which were observed digging for water in the gravel bed approximately 200 meters east and downstream of the dam structure. This site does not have the requisite habitat to merit a formal springsnail survey. This spring consists of an alluvial groundwater impoundment. A concrete wall across the drainage impounds alluvial ground water on the upstream side and results in surface expression (Wood 2019).

Upper Silver Creek Spring Upper Silver Creek Spring (mapped as an Unnamed Spring by USGS) is situated within the Analysis Area along Silver Creek, between two proposed exploration areas, approximately 2,000 feet southeast (upstream) of Silver Creek Spring. The BLM visited this spring in September 1981. At the time of this visit, flow was described as ephemeral, and the spring was dry. Vegetation observed in 1981 included tamarisk, mesquite, and graminoids. Wildlife was not recorded by the BLM at this spring. WestLand’s visit in May 2019 noted that no standing water was present. The spring location was evident as a dense thicket in the wash dominated by honey mesquite and tamarisk. Nine native species were detected: desert baccharis (Baccharis sergiloides), slender poreleaf (Porophyllum gracile), desert-willow (Chilopsis linearis), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), whispering bells (Emmenanthe penduliflora), honey mesquite, catclaw acacia, California sage (Salvia columbariae), and groundcherry (Physalis crassifolia); and three non-native species: Indian hedge-mustard (Sisymbrium orientale), red brome (Bromus rubens), and tamarisk. No wildlife was observed at this location. This site does not have the requisite habitat to merit a formal springsnail survey. No discernable flow was detected at this site during spring flow surveys conducted by Wood PLC (Wood 2019).

WestLand Resources, Inc. 10

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Secret Pass Spring Secret Pass Spring is situated in the Mount Nutt Wilderness Area approximately 2.3 miles north of the Analysis Area. The BLM did not provide records of visits to this spring. WestLand’s visit in May 2019 noted that this spring is composed of a series of tinajas with pooled water. Vegetation observed during this visit included abundant monkey flower (Erythranthe guttata), desert willow, desert senna, and climbing milkweed (Funastrum cynanchoides). Tadpole and adult red spotted toads were observed at this site. This site does not have the requisite habitat to merit a formal springsnail survey. Spring surveys in 2019 detected a bedrock spring fed by a bedrock pool and sub-vertical fissures. The existence of the bedrock pool was likely associated with alluvial impoundment and expression due to an alluvial bedrock pinch point (Wood 2019).

Bighorn Spring Complex Bighorn Spring complex (Upper and Lower; mapped as Unnamed Springs by USGS) is situated in the Mount Nutt Wilderness Area approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Analysis Area. The BLM visited these springs in January 2006. Flow was described as perennial at both springs; 3 gpm was measured at the upper spring and 0.25 gpm at the lower spring, which was described as displaying continuous surface flow from the upper spring. Vegetation observed by the BLM included cottonwood, oak, and desert willow. Wildlife recorded by BLM included quail and bighorn sheep. WestLand did not visit this spring in May 2019. These springs are likely bedrock derived and driven by upstream alluvial impoundment (Wood 2019).

Whiskey Spring Whiskey Spring is situated in the Mount Nutt Wilderness Area approximately 0.5 mile east of the Analysis Area. The BLM visited this spring in March 1984 and January 2006. Flow was described as ephemeral in 1984 and perennial in 2006, emanating from a cave along a canyon wall. The spring was described as “dripping” and a flow rate was not recorded in 1984; a flow rate of 0.052 gpm was measured in 2006. Vegetation observed by the BLM included mesquite, catclaw acacia, and desert willow. Wildlife recorded by the BLM consisted of burros. WestLand did not visit this spring in May 2019. This is a bedrock spring at high elevation, and it is likely the expression of saturated shallow fractures (Wood 2019).

Grapevine Canyon Spring Grapevine Canyon Spring is situated in the Mount Nutt Wilderness Area approximately 0.5 mile east of the Analysis Area. BLM visited this spring in September 1981 and June 2006. Flow was described as perennial for both visits. Vegetation observed by the BLM included grapevines, catclaw acacia, palo verde, and desert willow. Wildlife recorded by the BLM consisted of burros. WestLand’s visit in May 2019 noted that this spring is within a narrow and steeply walled canyon running roughly east to west. The site is dominated by canyon grape (Vitis arizonica) along with willow (Salix bonplandiana) and common reed (Phragmites australis). Seeps and shallow pools of standing water were scattered throughout the drainage. The following vegetation was recorded: monkey flower, rabbit’s foot grass,

WestLand Resources, Inc. 11

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

burrobush (Ambrosia monogyra), climbing milkweed, desert baccharis, wild tobacco, globemallow (Sphaeralcea emoryi), rayless goldenhead (Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus), rough fleabane (Erigeron divergens), wand fleabane (E. oxyphyllus), Schott's pygmycedar (Peucephyllum schottii), bush arrowleaf (Pleurocoronis pluriseta), desert willow, whispering bells, scorpion weed (Phacelia perityloides), cholla, Arizona live-forever (Dudleya arizonica), manroot (Marah gilensis), Arizona centaury (Zeltnera calycosa), desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi), Indian mallow (Abutilon parvulum), miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), Sand evening-primrose (Chylismia arenaria), scarlet monkeyflower (Erythranthe cardinalis), needlegrass (Achnatherum sp.), miniature woollystar (Eriastrum diffusum), gily flower (Gilia sp.), pellitory (Parietaria sp.), vervain (Verbena sp.), and red brome. Fauna observed by WestLand included tadpole and adult red spotted toad (Anaxyrus punctatus) and a great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). This site does not have the requisite habitat to merit a formal springsnail survey. This spring is likely bedrock derived and driven by upstream alluvial impoundment (Wood 2019).

3.3. ABANDONED MINE FEATURES

Evidence of past mining operations exists throughout the Analysis Area. Prospect pits, shafts, and adits are particularly abundant in the northwest and eastern portions of the Analysis Area (e.g., Appendix C, Photos 2 and 5). These features are less common in alluvial areas such as along Silver Creek Wash. The mine features may provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Although all abandoned mine features in the Analysis Area have not been surveyed, opportunistic observations directly and indirectly confirm that various wildlife species (e.g., desert tortoise, sheep scat, burro, bat guano, rattlesnakes, and unidentified bat species) are using these features. Surveys by AGFD adjacent to the Analysis Area indicate widespread shaft and adit use by Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii), California leaf-nosed bats (Macrotus californicus), big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus), cave myotis (Myotis velifer) and canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus) (Piorkowski et al. 2013) (Diamond and Moreno 2019). It can reasonably be assumed that other abandoned mine features within the Analysis Area currently provide similar roosting habitat for these bat species.

3.4. SOILS

Soils in the Analysis Area consist mainly of very stony to gravelly and sandy loams, consistent with soils typically found in Lower Colorado River subdivision of Mohave Desertscrub (Brown 1994). The Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey describes the soils in the Analysis Area as being derived primarily from igneous and metamorphic rock, with high runoff capacities and little to no flooding hazards (Soil Survey Staff 2018)2.

Granitic Hills formed the Goldroad-Rock outcrop complex, with 20- to 60-percent slopes, account for 41.3 percent of the Analysis Area, and are historically associated with:

2 Soil Survey Staff accessed March 29, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 12

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

“sparse desert-shrub cover with annual grasses and forbs intermixed. Creosotebush, white brittlebush and white bursage are the major shrubs. This site is ephemeral range (grasses and forbs) for grazing.” (Appendix G, pg. 34)

Volcanic Hills formed the Rock outcrop-Sunrock complex, with steep slopes (30 to 65 percent), and Sunrock extremely gravelly sandy loam, with more moderate slopes (15 to 35 percent), comprise 39.1 percent of the Analysis Area and are historically associated with:

“desert shrub[s]. Some grasses and forbs are also present. Dominant shrub[s] are creosotebush, white bursage, and white brittlebush. Besides annual grasses, desert needlegrass may be present.” (Appendix G, pg. 44)

Limy slopes formed on Huevi very gravelly loam, with 2- to 40-percent slopes, account for 12.3 percent of the Analysis Area and are historically associated with:

“desert shrub[s]. Creosotebush, white bursage and white brittlebush are the major shrubs … A fire will not carry on this site and grazing is limited to annual grasses, forbs and low amounts of white bursage.” (Appendix G, p. 36-37)

Sandy washes, Andesite Hills and Sandy Loam Hills account for the remaining 7.3 percent of the Analysis Area, all of which are dominated by desert shrub vegetation communities (Appendix G). No cryptobiotic soils were observed during site visits to the Analysis Area.

3.5. VEGETATION

The Analysis Area is mapped by Brown and Lowe as the Mohave Desertscrub biotic community (The Nature Conservancy 2012) , and the vegetation present is consistent with the species commonly found in this community. The vegetation observed during WestLand’s site visits were also consistent with predictions based on the soils present at the site (Soil Survey Staff 2018; Appendix D).

During four field visits conducted by WestLand (January 25-26, August 29-30, and September 18-19, 2017 and August 22-24, 2018), botanists developed a list of plant species observed in the Analysis Area (Table 2). Dominant species observed include creosotebush (Larrea tridentate), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), ratany (Kamari spp.), Eastern Mojave buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), teddy bear cholla (Cylindropuntia bigelovii), velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), and eight-spine fishhook cactus (Echinomastus johnsonii) Honey mesquite, desert willow, smoketree (Psorothamnus spinosus), desert baccharis, blue paloverde (Parkinsonia florida), catclaw acacia, and burrobush. Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) (Appendix C, Photo 6), and beargrass (Nolina bigelovii) are also present, particularly in the southern portions of the Analysis Area.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 13

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 2. Plant Species Observed in the Analysis Area during Field Reconnaissance1 Scientific Name Common Name Native Status2 Allionia incarnata Trailing windmills Native Amaranthus fimbriatus Fringed amaranth Native Ambrosia dumosa White bursage Native Ambrosia salsola White burrobush Native Amsonia tomentosa Woolly bluestar Native Aristida adscensionis Six-weeks threeawn Native Asclepias subulate Rush milkweed Native Baccharis salicifolia Seepwillow Native Baccharis sergiloides Squaw's false willow Native Bebbia juncea Sweetbush Native Boerhavia wrightii Large-bract spiderling Native Brickellia arguta Spearleaf brickellia Native Brickellia sp. Brickellbush Native Bromus sp. Brome Native/Introduced 3 Chamaesyce sp. Spurge Native Chamaesyce albomarginata White-margin sandmat Native Chilopsis linearis Desert willow Native Chorizanthe rigida Spineflower Native Chrysothamnus paniculatus Dotted rubber-rabbitbrush Native Cylindropuntia acanthocarpa Buckhorn cholla Native Cylindropuntia bigelovii Teddybear cholla Native Cylindropuntia echinocarpa Silver cholla Native Cylindropuntia leptocaulis Christmas cholla Native Dasyochloa pulchella False fluffgrass Native Datura sp. Jimsonweed Native/Introduced Ditaxis neomexicana New Mexico silverbush Native Echinocereus engelmannii Saints cactus Native Echinomastus johnsonii Eight-spine fishhook cactus Native Encelia farinosa White brittlebush Native Ephedra aspera Rough joint-fir Native Eriastrum sp. Woollystar Native Eriogonum deflexum Flat-crown wild buckwheat Native Eriogonum fasciculatum Eastern Mojave wild buckwheat Native Eriogonum inflatum Desert trumpet Native Eriogonum wrightii Bastard sage Native Eucnide urens Desert stingbush Native Ferocactus cylindraceus California barrel cactus Native Fouquieria splendens Ocotillo Native Funastrum cynanchoides Fringed twinevine Native Galium sp. Bedstraw Native/Introduced Gutierrezia sp. Snakeweed Native Hymenoclea salsola Burrobush Native Hyptis emoryi Desert lavender Native

WestLand Resources, Inc. 14

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Scientific Name Common Name Native Status2 Janusia gracilis Slender janusia Native Krameria erecta Littleleaf ratany Native Krameria grayi White ratany Native Larrea tridentata Creosotebush Native Lotus rigidus Broom deerweed Native Lycium parishii Wolfberry Native Lycium sp. Desert-thorn Native/Introduced Mammillaria tetrancistra Corkseed cactus Native Marina parryi Parry’s false prairie clover Native Matelea parvifolia Spearleaf Native Nicotiana obtusifolia Desert tobacco Native Nolina bigelovii Bigelow’s beargrass Native Opuntia basilaris Beavertail cactus Native Parkinsonia florida Blue palo verde Native Pectis papposa Many-bristle chinchweed Native Peucephyllum schottii Schott’s pygmy cedar Native Phoradendron californicum Mesquite mistletoe Native Physalis sp. Groundcherry Native/Introduced Pleuraphis rigida Big galleta Native Pleurocoronis pluriseta Bush arrowleaf Native Porophyllum gracile Slender poreleaf Native Prosopis glandulosa Honey mesquite Native Prunus fasciculata Desert almond Native Psorothamnus fremontii Fremont’s dalea Native Psorothamnus spinosus Smoketree Native Salazaria mexicana Mexican bladdersage Native Schismus sp. Mediterranean grass Introduced Sclerocactus johnsonii Johnson’s fishhook cactus Native Senegalia greggii Long-flower catclaw Native Senna covesii Desert Senna Native Sphaeralcea sp. Globemallow Native/Introduced Stillingia linearifolia Queen’s root Native Tamarix ramosissima Five-stamen tamarisk Introduced Thamnosma montana Turpentinebroom Native Tidestromia lanuginosa Woolly honeysweet Native Trixis californica American threefold Native Viguiera parishii Parish’s scrub-aster Native Yucca schidigera Mojave yucca Native Ziziphus obtusifolia Lotebush Native 1 Note that this list does not include all species that could occur in the Analysis Area. 2 Native or Introduced status taken from USDA PLANTS Database (PLANTS), accessed October 19, 2018. 3 In PLANTS, Native means naturally occurring at the time of Columbus. Some genera could not be identified to species in the field and are therefore categorized as Native and Introduced due to the uncertainty of the taxonomic identity (USDA 2019).

WestLand Resources, Inc. 15

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Invasive Species WestLand observed three species of exotic invasive plants in the Analysis Area, including Mediterranean grass (Schismus sp.), brome (Bromus sp.), and five-stamen tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). Mediterranean grass is a common groundcover in portions of the Analysis Area. Brome occurs in concentrated patches, including along washes, throughout the Analysis Area. Tamarisk is limited to a few patches in dry washes in the southeast of the Analysis Area and Silver Creek Wash (Appendix C, Photo 7).

3.6. WILDLIFE

Wildlife observed by WestLand in the Analysis Area consisted of species characteristically found in Mohave Desertscrub habitat. Mammals observed included feral burros (Equus asinus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus sp.), woodrat (Neotoma sp.), and pocket mouse (Perognathus sp.). Additionally, one male bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) was observed along BLM Road 7717. Much of the Analysis Area is considered bighorn sheep habitat (BLM 1993, 2018) (Figure 5; Appendix C, Photo 8), and officially recognized lambing grounds are located approximately 1 mile east of Analysis Area (BLM 1993). The AGFD abandoned mine surveys indicate the presence of Townsend’s big-eared bats, California leaf-nosed bats, big brown bats, pallid bats, cave myotis, and canyon bat directly adjacent to the Analysis Area (Diamond and Moreno 2019, Piorkowski et al. 2013). Canyon bats have been detected day roosting in and around the production facilities by AGFD.

Birds observed included black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), common raven (Corvus corax), gnatcatcher (Polioptila sp.), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). No avian surveys were conducted.

Observed reptile and amphibian species included collared lizard (Crotaphytus sp.), common chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater), spiny lizard (Sceloporus sp.), tiger whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris), western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), and red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus). Additionally, three desert tortoises (Gopherus sp.)3, tortoise sign, and potential burrows were also observed during site visits (Figure 6; Appendix C, Photo 9). Desert tortoise habitat occurs throughout the Analysis Area and is mapped as Category II and Category III habitat for SDT per the BLM Desert Tortoise Habitat Categorization (Figure 6). No reptile or amphibian surveys were conducted. WestLand’s observations of four of the springs, within and near the Analysis Area, concluded that none of these locations were suitable for springsnails.

3 Note that the Analysis Area is within the contact zone of Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) and Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), which are known to interbreed.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 16

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

3.7. WILDLIFE LINKAGES

The Analysis Area overlaps a small portion of a modeled wildlife movement linkage between the Warm Springs and Mount Perkins habitat blocks (Beier et al. 2008). The Warm Springs and Mount Perkins wildlife linkage is a GIS program that models the connections among large contiguous blocks of publicly held lands to predict broad-scale wildlife movement corridors. The linkage design was based on the estimated habitat use patterns of 14 focal species to provide movement and reproductive habitat between the two large blocks of suitable habitat. This wildlife linkage GIS model is based on assumptions and expert opinion rather than observations of wildlife movement patterns (Beier et al. 2008). Specifically, the model used spatially derived vegetation, land cover (USGS 2005), elevation, topographic position, and distance to nearest road to create associations with wildlife habitat use. These associations between wildlife movement and five variables are highly sensitive to model assumptions. As such, these models provide predictions of general areas where wildlife may be likely to move across the landscape, but we cannot reasonably conclude from these models that wildlife will only move between habitat blocks within the delineated linkage boundaries.

Beier et al. (2008) recommended the retention of five linkage strands connecting the Warm Springs habitat block and the Mount Perkins habitat block (Beier et al. 2008). Inside the Analysis Area, 313.66 acres occur within the southwestern corner of the combined strand A and B linkage (Figure 4). Of this 313.66 acres, 241.58 are on BLM managed lands and the remaining 72.08 acres are privately held (Figure 4). Within the Analysis Area, 47.26 acres of the linkage occur inside the Project Area. This 47.26 acres of impact represents 0.12 percent of the total area of the Warm Springs and Mount Perkins wildlife linkage. While the exploration polygon within the linkage is 47.26 acres, the drilling footprint will only impact a small portion of this polygon. The impact within these 47.26 acres consists of temporally short-lived drilling activities that will have a short-term impact.

The modeled corridor only occurs within the north central portion of the Analysis Area, where proposed activities consist of temporary drill sites totaling 47.26 acres of temporary impact. Thus, impacts will be minimal and short-term. Animals are not expected to move only in the modeled GIS linkage, so when looking at landscape-level movement, the project may have some local effects on movement, but no substantial effects to wildlife at the landscape level.

3.8. LAND USE

Land uses within the Analysis Area include mining activities, dispersed public recreation, off-road vehicle use, recreational shooting, and hunting. Disturbance from recreational activities is most evident along existing dirt roadways.

No grazing allotments have been allocated by BLM within the Analysis Area (BLM 2007, 2018); however, wild burros are common throughout the Analysis Area. Visual evidence indicates high intensity, long duration grazing by feral burros.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 17

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Protected areas within the Analysis Area include the Bullhead Bajada Natural and Cultural Area of Critical and Environmental Concern (ACEC; Figure 2), immediately south of the Project Area. The designation of this ACEC aims to manage environmental resources such as habitat for the SDT and other special-status or sensitive species in the area (BLM 2007). Additionally, the extreme eastern edge of the Analysis Area includes a portion of the Mount Nutt Wilderness (Figure 2).

4. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES SCREENING ANALYSIS METHODS

4.1. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IDENTIFICATION

Special-status species screened for this BE includes those that have been recorded or have some potential to occur within or near the Analysis Area, and are:

• Species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS under the ESA that could have some potential to occur in the Analysis Area as identified by the USFWS Information, Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool (Appendix A). • Species considered sensitive by the Colorado River District of the BLM4 (Appendix B). • Species protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. • Additional species requested for inclusion by the BLM.

4.2. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES SCREENING

Based on the special-status and BLM requested species list generated from the above sources, a screening analysis was performed to evaluate the potential for these species to occur within the Analysis Area and to determine the presence or absence of designated or proposed critical habitat within the Analysis Area. These determinations were based on review of:

• The natural history and known geographical and elevational ranges of the special-status species. • Results of an AGFD Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) online environmental review tool query that provided records of special-status species within 5 miles of the Analysis Area (Appendix D). • Other occurrence records in published or grey literature, including citizen science data. • Data provided by the AGFD HabiMap online mapping system. • Data provided by the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal online mapping tool. • Observations recorded during field reconnaissance of the habitats present in the Analysis Area. WestLand biologists visited the Analysis Area (January 25-26, August 29-30, and September

4 Federally Threatened and Endangered species on the BLM Sensitive Species List not identified by IPaC are not considered in our screening.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 18

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

18-19, 2017, August 22-24, 2018 and May 16, 2019) to identify habitat types within the Analysis Area and evaluate the potential for special-status species to be present.

The criteria used to determine the potential of occurrence of each species included in this screening analysis are defined as follows:

Present: The species has been observed to occur within the Analysis Area, the Analysis Area is within the known range and distribution of the species, and habitat characteristics required by the species are present.

Possible: There are no known records of the species within the Analysis Area, but the known, current distribution of the species includes the Analysis Area and the required habitat characteristics of the species appear to be present in the Analysis Area. Given the uncertainty associated with species identification and accuracy of the location of observations from eBird and other citizen science databases, observations associated with citizen science databases are evidence that a species is possible within the Analysis Area.

Unlikely: The known, current distribution of the species does not include the Analysis Area, but the distribution of the species is close enough such that the Analysis Area may be within the dispersal or foraging distance of the species, and they may show up as transients. The habitat characteristics required by the species may be present in the Analysis Area.

None: The Analysis Area is outside of the known distribution of the species or the habitat characteristics required by the species are not present.

5. EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Potential effects of the Project on special-status and BLM requested species were evaluated by considering the results of the Screening Analysis alongside the Project’s possible impacts from 1) surface disturbance, 2) lighting, 3) noise and vibration, 4) dust, 5) traffic, 6) groundwater pumping and 7) potential formation of a pit lake. A brief discussion of each of these factors is provided as follows.

5.1. SURFACE DISTURBANCE

Surface disturbance will impact approximately 497.10 acres of Mohave Desertscrub and ephemeral washes on BLM lands within the Analysis Area. This includes an estimated 110.31 acres of temporary disturbance associated with exploration drilling. Thus, 386.79 acres will be permanently impacted within the Analysis Area (Figure 2; Table 1).

Surface disturbance and habitat impacts from the Project would not occur all at once. Construction of the heap leach pad would be phased over a 6-month period. Disturbance associated with barren rock stockpiles would increase with mining until the cessation of mining activities. Exploration

WestLand Resources, Inc. 19

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

activities would occur over a 3-year period, with a maximum of five drill rigs operating concurrently (Golden Vertex 2019). Where practicable, once drilling is determined to be completed at a drill site, the drill site will be reclaimed pursuant to the requirements of the MPO. As temporary access roads are no longer needed, they will be closed and reclaimed. In this way, the total amount of disturbed land that has not been reclaimed at any one time will be minimized to the extent practicable. Following cessation of mining activities, disturbed areas will be reclaimed by regrading and reseeding with native vegetation as described in the MPO (Golden Vertex 2019).

5.2. LIGHTING

The Project is an expansion of existing mining operations. Existing operations entail mining activities 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. As such, nighttime lighting from Moss Mine already exists within the Analysis Area. The Project will increase the geographic extent of nighttime lighting due to the expansion of the heap leach, barren waste rock, and other mine facilities. In addition, exploratory drilling will increase nighttime lighting within the Analysis Area.

Artificial night lighting is known to have a variety of effects on wildlife species (Rich and Longcore 2006) which appear to be driven by a combination of light intensity, duration, and wavelength (Poot et al. 2008). For example, artificial nighttime lighting can disrupt the behavior and orientation of migratory birds (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). As described in detail in the MPO, Appendix R, Golden Vertex has committed to Environmental Protection Measures that will minimize the impacts of increased lighting levels on wildlife (Golden Vertex 2019). These include minimizing external lighting to levels required for safety and security purposes, directing light associated with mine infrastructure downward towards the interior of the mine, and using light fixtures that are hooded.

Lighting is already present around the existing mine operations. Thus, the addition of lighting directly adjacent to the mine expansion and exploratory drill rigs , and the fact that lighting will attenuate with distance, limits any potential effects of Project-associated light.

5.3. NOISE AND VIBRATION

Because the Project is an expansion of existing mining operations that entail mining activities 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, noise and vibration from activities at Moss Mine already exist within the Analysis Area. The Project increases the area surrounding Moss Mine that will experience anthropogenic noise. However, because noise attenuates with distance (ISO 1996), any potential effects of Project-associated noise should be restricted to areas immediately surrounding noise sources. Noise analyses conducted as provided in the MPO conclude that noise levels will remain imperceptible in areas distant from the mine, such as the Mount Nutt Wilderness (Golden Vertex 2019). Areas closer to the proposed mine expansion would experience higher increases in noise, but analyses have concluded that noise would be at relatively low levels (Golden Vertex 2019). Moreover, noise from mining operations already exists, such that wildlife in the Analysis Area already experience

WestLand Resources, Inc. 20

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

some level of noise from mining activities.

Similarly, vibration from blasting will attenuate with distance (California Department of Transportation 2013) such that vibration levels will be highest nearest to the location of blasts within the proposed pits. Vibration from blasting is not expected to be perceptible beyond the mining operations because the size of the charge is small (Golden Vertex 2019).

Noise levels from exploration drilling activities, construction, and reclamation activities are anticipated to increase in areas surrounding these activities. However, because only five rigs will be operating at one time, and noise attenuates with distance, substantial increases in noise levels will be limited to areas within approximately 1,000 feet of active drilling and construction sites (Golden Vertex 2019). Moreover, increases in noise from these activities would be temporary, and only occur during these activities. Increased vibration levels are not expected to result from drilling activities.

5.4. DUST

Fugitive dust may be generated as a result of the Project, though dust is largely deposited closest to the source, and deposition further attenuates with distance. For example, dust loads along unpaved haul ways decreases exponentially with distance, such that more than 70 percent of the total dust is deposited within 33 feet (10 m) of the road, and more than 90 percent within 98 feet (30 m) (Walker and Everett 1987). Dust can affect the growth processes of vegetation and alter the structure of plant communities in an area (Farmer 1993), thus potentially affecting wildlife habitat. However, considering that the Project will minimize fugitive dust through dust suppression efforts and reduced speed limits, and the Project entails exploration activities near and construction of mine facilitates immediately adjacent to existing operations (Golden Vertex 2019), the potential effects of dust on wildlife and vegetation are not expected to be substantially different from current conditions within the Analysis Area.

5.5. TRAFFIC

The Project would entail approximately 42 roundtrips to the mine site daily during implementation of the Project (Golden Vertex 2019). Increased traffic could affect biological resources by increasing the probability of vehicular-wildlife collisions and through the creation of fugitive dust from roadways. Golden Vertex does not anticipate that mining-related traffic will increase substantially on regional roads (Golden Vertex 2019). Moreover, Golden Vertex will implement dust suppression activities and limit speeds of mine traffic to 15 miles per hour within the MSHA-controlled facility, along the access road to the mine (BLM Road 7717), and along all exploration roads. As such, effects to wildlife and vegetation from increased traffic is expected to be minimized.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 21

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

5.6. GROUNDWATER PUMPING

Based on field visits conducted by biologists from the BLM and WestLand in May 2019, and site visits conducted sporadically by BLM biologists between 1981 and 2006, the springs in the vicinity of the Project support limited riparian vegetation. However, the springs closest to the Project, Silver Creek Spring and Upper Silver Creek Spring, do not support the species of riparian trees that are indicative of consistent, shallow groundwater. There are two other springs that support small pockets of hydroriparian vegetation, specifically, Freemont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and Bonpland willow (Salix bonplandiana): Upper Bighorn Spring (and areas immediately downstream) and Grapevine Spring. These springs, however, are more than 3 miles from the Project. Although multi-age stands of the riparian species at these springs require shallow groundwater (e.g., < 3 m; Stromberg et al. 2013) with only small annual fluctuations (e.g., < 1 m; Stromberg et al. 2005), individual trees, such as cottonwoods, can grow in areas with larger depth to groundwater (e.g., 4-6 m; Stromberg et al. 1996). The vegetation at these locations is limited to a few riparian trees, and the presence of these trees is consistent with the conclusion that the spring locations in the vicinity of the Project are supported by perched alluvial aquifer or bedrock fractures systems that are disconnected from the regional water table (Wood 2019). Thus, groundwater drawdown is unlikely to have any impact on the available surface water adjacent to the Analysis Area.

5.7. PIT LAKE

A detailed description of the potential for pit lake formation, chemistry, interaction with local springs and pollutant migration is provided in Section 9.2.1 of the MPO (Golden Vertex 2019).

“Hydrological modeling predicted that much of the water from wells in the vicinity of the Moss Mine was coming from fractures within the bedrock in and around the Moss Mine (see [MPO] Appendix G). The water from these wells is non-acidic, exhibiting a pH of 7.2 to 7.5. Water quality analyses conducted indicate most elements analyzed were below the method detection limit. The results of this testing are shown in Table 17 and Table 18. Although total dissolved solids were high in the samples, no individual constituents exceeded the Arizona clean water standards guidelines. High total dissolved solids are not unusual for wells in the Bullhead City area. Golden Vertex has established a program of quarterly testing of well water from several areas of the open pit and proposed open pit expansions (east and west) to continue to monitor groundwater quality and track changes that may occur during the mine life ].

Specifically, water quality samples have been collected during recent hydrogeological investigations and they serve as a benchmark for water quality at the mine ([MPO] Appendix K). Water quality testing shows the water to be slightly alkaline with a pH of 7.2. No anomalous elemental values were detected and in summary, the water appears to be very suitable for use as process water. Upon cessation of mining activities, there is potential for a pit lake to form within the open pit footprint on the patented land. In accordance with ARS 49-243 (G)(1) and the APP, Golden

WestLand Resources, Inc. 22

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Vertex is required to demonstrate, through modeling, that final open pits are sufficient to capture pollutants discharged and is hydrologically isolated so that it does not allow pollutant migration to groundwater. The demonstration of passive containment will be updated every five years and reviewed by ADEQ.”

Pit lake formation is possible post-mining within the Analysis Area. The analysis in the MPO also demonstrates that any potential pit lake would be terminal with no hydrological interaction with local springs and would be located entirely on Golden Vertex patented land (Golden Vertex 2019). Water chemistry analysis indicates that no individual solutes exceeded the Arizona Clean Water standard guidelines. As such, the post-mining pit lake is not expected to affect wildlife through bioaccumulation or other water quality issues (Golden Vertex 2019).

Even if the quality of the pit lake water unexpectedly exceeds applicable standards, the effect on wildlife is expected to be limited to the areas immediately surrounding the pit lake. For example, the bioaccumulation of contaminants in breeding birds declines rapidly with distance from contaminated water sources (Howie 2010). Moreover, the structure of the pit is likely to limit the availability and suitability of a pit lake for wildlife use. If a pit lake forms it is likely to have characteristics similar to oligotrophic lake systems (Hakonson 2009). This type of pit lake provides little opportunity for primary or secondary production and thus limits the potential for contaminants to bioaccumulate. As such, should a pit lake form, widespread impacts to wildlife from potential water quality impacts of the pit lake are not expected.

6. SPECIAL-STATUS AND BLM REQUESTED SPECIES SCREENING RESULTS

Of the 64 special-status and BLM requested species evaluated, 39 species have no potential to occur, three are unlikely to occur, 19 possibly occur, and three are known to occur in the Analysis Area (Tables 2, 3, and 4). For the 25 species that may be affected, the Project is not likely to result in a trend toward listing or a loss of viability for these species or result in take that is prohibited by statute. Results of the screening and effects analyses for these species are presented in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. Note that BLM sensitive species and BLM requested species that are unlikely or have no potential to occur are addressed in Appendix F. No designated or proposed critical habitat is present in the Analysis Area.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 23

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 3. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of ESA Listed Species within the Analysis Area USFWS Distribution Potential Effects Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Status in Arizona to Occur Determination FISH (2) Bonytail chub Endangered (USFWS Inhabits mid-sized to large rivers in stream In Arizona, 235–1,960 ft Colorado Basin endemic. Historically widespread Historically in the Colorado, Gila, Salt and None. The Analysis No effect. The species (Gila elegans) 1980a); designated critical current and pooled areas (AGFD 2001a) (AGFD 2001a). in the Colorado River and its main tributaries. Verde rivers. Only extant population in Area does not contain is not expected to occur habitat (USFWS 1994a) Currently no self-sustaining wild populations Lake Mohave with possible individuals appropriate habitat. within the Analysis (USFWS 2012). Isolated populations along the between Parker Dam and Davis Dam Area. Yampa River (Colorado), the Green River (Utah), (AGFD 2001a). the confluence of the Colorado and Green rivers, and the Colorado River near the Colorado-Utah border (AGFD 2001a). Razorback sucker Endangered (USFWS Inhabits backwaters, flooded bottomlands, Below 6,000 ft (USFWS 1991). Colorado Basin endemic. Historically widespread Presently only located in lakes Powell, None. The Analysis No effect. The species (Xyrauchen texanus) 1991); designated critical pools, side channels, and other slower throughout the Basin from Wyoming to Mexico. Mead, Mohave and Havasu. Believed to be Area does not contain is not expected to occur habitat (USFWS1994a). moving water bodies in the Lower Colorado Currently restricted to above the Parker Dam extirpated downstream the Parker Dam appropriate habitat. within the Analysis Recommended for River Basin (USFWS 1991). through Lake Mead and the Green River Basin (USFWS 2018b). Critical habitat occurs on Area. downlisting to Threatened and the Upper Colorado River Basin (USFWS the Colorado River approximately 8 miles due to a moderate degree 2018b). (12.9 km) northwest of the Analysis Area of threat and high potential (USFWS 1994a). There is one HDMS for recovery (USFWS record of this species within 5 miles of the 2018a). Analysis Area.

BIRDS (3) Yellow-billed Threatened (USFWS In Arizona, most commonly found in Usually below 6,600 ft (AGFD At the species level, breeds throughout temperate More common in southern, central and the None. The Analysis No effect. The species cuckoo, 2014b); proposed critical lowland riparian woodlands where Fremont 2011b) North America south to Mexico and the Greater extreme northeast portion of state, but Area does not contain is not expected to occur western DPS habitat (USFWS 2014a) cottonwood, willow, velvet ash, Arizona Antilles (Hughes 2015). Below we present occurs throughout the state where habitat appropriate habitat. within the Analysis (Coccyzus americanus) walnut, mesquite, and tamarisk are dominant. information for the western DPS. Breeding exists, including Mohave County (AGFD Area. Also uses mesquite bosques and smaller Range In the U.S.: west of the Rocky Mountains; 2011b). Critical habitat has been proposed stands of isolated cottonwoods mixed with historically Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, along the Colorado River approximately 5.5 mesquite and areas of upland-associated Utah, Colorado, Wyoming California, Arizona, miles (9.5 km) to the west of the Analysis vegetation along drainages dominated by oaks New Mexico, and Texas. In Mexico: Baja Area (USFWS 2014a). and junipers (WestLand 2013). Dense California, Baja California Sur, and Sonora. understory foliage is important for nesting Wintering Range South America as far south as (Halterman et al. 2016, USFWS 2014a, 2014b) central Argentina and Uruguay (AGFD 2011b). California least tern Endangered (USFWS Inhabits open sandy beaches, sandbars, gravel Breeding Range In the U.S.: Since 1970, limited Breeding has been documented in None. The Analysis No effect. The species (Sternula [=Sterna] 1970); no critical habitat pits, or exposed flats along shorelines of to coastal California from San Francisco Bay to Maricopa County, and transient migrants Area does not contain is not expected to occur antillarum browni) inland rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and wetland the Mexican border. In Mexico: this species have been documented in Mohave and appropriate habitat. within the Analysis areas (USFWS 1985). occurs in the Gulf of California and western Pima counties (USFWS 1985). Area. coast of the Baja peninsula, Mexico. Wintering Range (poorly known) southern Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama and possibly Peru (USFWS 2006). Yuma clapper rail Endangered (USFWS Inhabits and breeds in freshwater, brackish or Below 1,700 ft (AGFD 2006). Resident In the U.S.: California, extreme Found along the lower Colorado River None. The Analysis No effect. The species (Rallus obsoletus 1967); no critical habitat salt marshes with emergent vegetation southern Nevada, and Arizona. In Mexico north to Lake Mead, the Virgin River, Bill Area does not contain is not expected to occur [=longirostris] (Eddleman and Conway 2018). In Arizona, (poorly known): Baja California, Baja California Williams River, lower Gila River between appropriate habitat. within the Analysis yumanensis) favors marshes composed of cattail and Sur, Sinaloa, and Nayarit (Eddleman and Conway Phoenix and the Colorado River, the lower Area. bulrush along the Colorado River and its 2018, USFWS 2009). Salt and Verde rivers. This species is also major tributaries, and areas supported by occasionally sighted a the Picacho irrigation water (AGFD 2006, USFWS 2009). Reservoir, Tavasci Marsh, Roosevelt Lake, Prefers crustacean prey but also consumes and Quitobaquito Pond (AGFD 2006). fish, frogs, mollusks, insects and seeds of aquatic plants (AGFD 2006).

WestLand Resources, Inc. 24

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 3. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of ESA Listed Species within the Analysis Area USFWS Distribution Potential Effects Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Status in Arizona to Occur Determination REPTILES (1) Northern Mexican Threatened (USFWS Depends on water for its primarily aquatic 3,000–8,500 ft; most In the U.S.: Arizona and New Mexico (likely Fragmented populations within the None. The Analysis No effect. The species gartersnake 2014c); proposed critical prey base and is heavily dependent on fish commonly below 5,000 ft extirpated). In Mexico (poorly known): Sonora, middle/upper Verde River drainage, Area does not contain is not expected to occur (Thamnophis eques habitat (USFWS 2013a) species. Occurs near or in ponds, cienegas, (AGFD 2012). Chihuahua, Durango, Coahuila, Zacatecas, middle/lower Tonto Creek, and the appropriate habitat. within the Analysis megalops) lowland river riparian forests and woodlands, Guanajuato, Nayarit, Hidalgo, Jalisco, San Luis Cienega Creek drainage, as well as in a Area. and upland stream gallery forests. Avoids Potosí, Aguascalientes, Tlaxcala, Puebla, México, small number of isolated wetland habitats steep mountain canyons. Most abundant in Michoacán, Oaxaca, Veracruz, and Querétaro in southeastern portions of the state densely vegetated habitat. Associated with a (AGFD 2012). (USFWS 2013a). variety of biotic communities including Sonoran Desertscrub, Semidesert Grasslands, Interior Chaparral, Madrean Evergreen Woodland and into the lower reaches of Petran Montane Conifer Forest (AGFD 2012, USFWS 2013a). Northern Mexican gartersnakes are highly aquatic but may also be found up to 1 mile (or more) away from water, using terrestrial habitat for brumation, or for thermoregulatory needs such as developing young or digestion (pers. comm. Jeff Servoss, USFWS to David Cerasale, WestLand, April 18, 2016).

WestLand Resources, Inc. 25

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status BIRDS (5) Western burrowing owl Sensitive Inhabits open, treeless, flat to In Arizona, 650–6,140 ft Breeding Range In Canada. Found nesting throughout the state Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) gently-sloping areas (AGFD 2001c). southern British Columbia, Alberta where favorable habitat is present, known geographic range and appropriate to result in a trend toward listing or loss characterized by low, sparse and Saskatchewan. In the U.S.: with concentration areas in the habitat is present. HabiMap’s (AGFD of viability. vegetation within grassland, Washington, Oregon, California, Detrital and Hualapai valleys north 2019) predictive distribution for this steppe, and desert biomes. Also Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, of Kingman (Corman and Wise- species does not include the Analysis If present in the area, a limited number of found in human-influenced Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, New Gervais 2005, p. 222-223). Area, but predicts occurrence along individual owls may be impacted by the landscapes such as areas bladed Mexico, North and South Dakota, Silver Creek Wash adjacent to the east of potential effects of the Project described in for future development, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, the Analysis Area. This species was not Section 5. However, some of the agricultural lands, airports, golf northwestern Texas. Outside the detected during breeding bird surveys of Environmental Protection Measures courses, and other open U.S.: Mexico (including the Baja the Oatman or adjacent quadrangles developed by Golden Vertex described in disturbed areas (Corman and Peninsula), Guatemala and (AGFD 2019, Corman and Wise-Gervais Section 2, particularly pre-disturbance Wise-Gervais 2005, p. 222-223). Honduras. Wintering Range From 2005). There are no HDMS records surveys for migratory birds and buffers Oregon to Kansas, U.S. and south within the Oatman quadrangle but the surrounding active nests, will minimize throughout the breeding range species has been recorded from the impacts to the species. Moreover, effects (Poulin et al. 2011). adjacent quadrangles of Boundary Cone, from exploratory drilling will be minimized Needles NE and Union Pass (AGFD as a maximum of five drill rigs will be 2019). There are no eBird (2019)5 operational at any one time, and the total records for the subspecies in the vicinity, habitat disturbance associated the mine however A. cunicularia has been reported expansion and exploration program is small in nearby urban and agricultural areas compared to the species’ range within along the Colorado River. Arizona and North America. Additionally, this species readily colonizes human-altered landscapes (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005), indicating that it is tolerant of some level of disturbance. Thus, effects associated with the Project will not impact the species as a whole. Costa’s hummingbird Sensitive In Arizona, inhabits dry washes, In Arizona, 100–7,800 ft Breeding Range In the U.S.: Found in the northwestern and Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Calypte costae) canyons, and rocky slopes in (Corman and Wise- southern California, southern southern portions of the state known geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss Sonoran and Mohave Gervais 2005). Nevada, northwestern and (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). appropriate habitat. There is no of viability. Desertscrub (Corman and Wise- southern Arizona, and extreme predictive distribution available for this Gervais 2005). southwestern New Mexico. In species (AGFD 2019). Although there If present in the area, a limited number of Mexico: Sonora, Baja California are no eBird (2019)6 or HDMS records, individuals may be impacted by the potential and Sur. Wintering Range In the the species has been confirmed to breed effects of the Project described in Section 5. U.S.: southern California and within the Oatman quadrangle (AGFD However, some of the Environmental southwestern Arizona. In Mexico: 2019, Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Protection Measures developed by Golden Sonora, Sinaloa, Baja California Vertex described in Section 2, particularly and Baja California Sur (Baltosser pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds and Scott 1996). and buffers surrounding active nests, will minimize impacts to the species. Moreover, effects from exploratory drilling will be minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs will be operational at any one time and the total habitat disturbance associated with the Project is small compared to the species’ range across the U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole.

5 Accessed April 16, 2019. 6 Accessed April 16, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 26

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Gilded flicker Sensitive Inhabits Sonoran Desert In Arizona, 200–4,600 ft Resident: In the U.S.: extreme A common resident in suitable Possible. Although the Analysis Area May impact individuals but is not likely (Colaptes chrysoides) uplands, in areas containing (Corman and Wise- southeastern California, Arizona habitat throughout Arizona does not contain the columnar cacti to result in a trend toward listing or loss numerous saguaro cacti. Less Gervais 2005). and extreme southern Nevada. In (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). favored for nesting, it is within the of viability. dense populations are found in Mexico: Sonora, Sinaloa, Baja breeding range of the species and more arid and sparsely vegetated California, and Baja California Sur xeroriparian areas might be used for If present in the area, a limited number of areas. Also known to use (Moore, Pyle, and Wiebe 2017). foraging. Although there are no HDMS individuals may be impacted by the potential adjacent areas of wooded desert records, the species is predicted to occur effects of the Project described in Section 5. dry washes and Sonoran riparian throughout the Analysis Area and However, some of the Environmental woodlands containing possibly breeds within the Oatman Protection Measures developed by Golden cottonwood and willow, but quadrangle (AGFD 2019, Corman and Vertex described in Section 2, particularly mostly for foraging (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). The species has pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds Wise-Gervais 2005). been reported from the nearby town of and buffers surrounding active nests, will Oatman (eBird 2019)7. minimize impacts to the species. Moreover, effects from exploratory drilling will be minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs will be operational at any one time and the total habitat disturbance associated with the Project is small compared to the species’ widespread range in the U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole. American peregrine falcon Sensitive Prefers steep cliffs that overlook In Arizona, 400–9,000 ft Falco peregrinus occurs on every Breeds throughout the state Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Falco peregrinus anatum) woodlands and riparian areas. (AGFD 2002a). continent except Antarctica wherever there is habitat and known geographic range and the species to result in a trend toward listing or loss Habitat selection is mainly driven (AGFD 2002a). Breeding Range sufficient prey. Most breeding forages widely across habitat types and of viability. by the abundance of prey (birds Includes all of North America peregrines in Arizona are found prey species (White et al. 2002). The and occasionally bats). This south of the tundra (excluding the along the Mogollon Rim, the Grand species predictive distribution includes If present in the area, a limited number of species can be found in less Pacific Northwest) to northern Canyon, and on the Colorado the Union Pass, Secret Pass, Mount individuals may be impacted by the potential optimal habitats, such as small, Mexico. Wintering Range Includes Plateau (AGFD 2002a). Nutt, Warm Springs and Boundary Cone effects of the Project described in Section 5. broken cliffs or cliffs in xeric portions of the breeding range quadrangles adjacent to the Oatman However, some of the Environmental areas, when preferred habitat is where prey is abundant year round quadrangle (AGFD 2019). It has not Protection Measures developed by Golden not available. Will roost on tall and extends south through Central been reported to breed within the Vertex described in Section 2, particularly buildings when prey is abundant America and South America Oatman or surrounding quadrangles nor pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds (AGFD 2002a). through Chile (AGFD 2002a, are there HDMS records (AGFD 2019, and buffers surrounding active nests, will White et al. 2002). Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). There minimize impacts to the species. Moreover, are no eBird records within or near the effects from exploratory drilling will be Analysis Area (eBird 2019)8. minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs will be operational at any one time and the total habitat disturbance associated with the Project is small compared to the species’ North America-wide range. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole.

7 Accessed March 19, 2019. 8 Accessed April 16, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 27

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status LeConte’s thrasher Sensitive Inhabits sparsely vegetated areas In Arizona, 150–1,500 ft Resident In the U.S.: southeastern Found in extreme western and Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Toxostoma lecontei) within lower Sonoran (Corman and Wise- California, southern Nevada, southwestern portions of the state known geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss Desertscrub. Typical habitat Gervais 2005). extreme western and southwestern and east along the Gila River Valley appropriate habitat. This species has not of viability. consists of open, flat to gently Arizona. In Mexico: western to Florence and the Picacho region been reported to breed, there are no rolling hills and shallow braided Sonora, Baja California, Baja (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). HDMS records and it is not predicted to If present in the area, a limited number of washes. Trees and larger shrubs California Sur (Sheppard 1996). occur within the Oatman quadrangle. individuals may be impacted by the potential are usually very sparingly There are no breeding or HDMS effects of the Project described in Section 5. distributed and saguaros and records, but there are small scattered However, some of the Environmental cholla are typically absent areas of predicted distribution in the Protection Measures developed by Golden (Corman and Wise-Gervais Secret Pass, Mount Nutt and Warm Vertex described in Section 2, particularly 2005). Springs quadrangles (AGFD 2019, pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). There and buffers surrounding active nests, will are no eBird (2019)9 reports within or minimize impacts to the species. Moreover, near the Analysis Area. effects from exploratory drilling will be minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs will be operational at any one time and the total habitat disturbance associated with the Project is small compared to the species’ range in the U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole. INVERTEBRATES (1) Monarch butterfly Sensitive Monarch caterpillars feed In Arizona, at all At the species level D. plexippus Breeding and migratory populations Possible. Two species of May impact individuals but is not likely (Danaus plexippus plexippus) exclusively on plants in the elevations (Morris, occurs in North America, Central occur throughout the state. Some Asclepiadoideae (Asclepias subulate and to result in a trend toward listing or loss subfamily Asclepiadoideae Kline, and Morris 2015). America, the Caribbean south to adults overwinter in the low deserts Funastrum cynanchoides) have been of viability. (milkweed) and adults forage for South America, Hawaii, Australia, of Arizona in areas where food observed within the Analysis Area nectar on a wide variety of some Pacific Islands, parts of Asia, resources are abundant. These areas (WestLand 2017) indicating that there are If present in the area, a limited number of flowers. This species can be Africa and southern Europe. are generally represented by urban suitable resources for larval development individuals may be impacted by the potential found in a wide variety of Populations outside of the environments including Yuma, and adults use a range of nectar sources. effects of the Project described in Section 5. habitats wherever milkweed Americas may be non-native (Zhan Phoenix and Tucson (Morris, Kline, However, some of the Environmental occurs. Overwintering et al. 2014). Breeding Range In and Morris 2015). Protection Measures developed by Golden populations use the leaves, Canada. southern-most portions of Vertex described in Section 2, particularly branches and trunks of large all provinces except Newfoundland the minimization of habitat disturbance and trees within forested groves. In and Labrador. In the U.S.: the revegetation of disturbed areas with native California, both native tree conterminous states. In Mexico: vegetation, will minimize impacts to the species and eucalyptus trees are northern portions of Baja species. Moreover, effects from exploratory utilized (Jepsen et al. 2015). California, Sonora, Chihuahua, drilling will be minimized as a maximum of Coahuila, Nuevo Léon, and five drill rigs will be operational at any one Tamaulipas. Wintering Range of time and the total habitat disturbance Migratory Populations In the U.S.: associated with the Project is small coastal California and southern compared to the species’ range across North Florida. In Mexico: northern Baja America and Mexico. There are also no California, Mexico D. F. and known substantial wintering populations of Michoacán (Jepsen et al. 2015). the species near the Analysis Area. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole.

9 Accessed April 16, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 28

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status MAMMALS (5) Townsend’s big-eared bat Sensitive Forages in edge habitats along Below 10,830 ft In Canada: southern British Found throughout Arizona Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Corynorhinus townsendii) streams and adjacent to or within (NatureServe 2019)10 Columbia. In the U.S.: all western (Hoffmeister 1986). geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss a variety of wooded habitats. states eastward to the Black Hills appropriate roosting habitat. This species of viability. Roosts in cliffs, caves and mines. of South Dakota and the Edwards is predicted to occur at the lower Has a large home range and Plateau in Texas. Isolated elevations present in the western portion If present in the area, a limited number of foraging distances (up to 93 populations also exist in of the Oatman quadrangle and in isolated individuals may be impacted by the potential miles) (Sherwin and Piaggio Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, patches within the Analysis Area (AGFD effects of the Project described in Section 5. 2005). Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 2019). There is no HDMS record within Effects from exploratory drilling will be Kentucky, Virginia, and West 5 miles of the Analysis Area but there is minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs Virginia. In Mexico: from the U.S. a record from the Union Pass quadrangle will be operational at any one time and the international border south to the (AGFD 2019). This species has been total habitat disturbance associated with the Isthmus of Tehuantepec detected within 0.5 mile of the Analysis Project is small compared to the species’ (NatureServe 2019)11 area by AGFD abandoned mine surveys range across North America and Mexico. (Diamond and Moreno 2019), Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals (Piorkowski et al. 2013) will not affect the species as a whole. Greater western mastiff bat Sensitive Occurs in rocky canyons with 240–8,475 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: central and southern Considered a year-round resident in Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Eumops perotis californicus) abundant roosting crevices. 2014b). California, southern Nevada, Arizona and has been observed in geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss Forages widely from roost sites Arizona, New Mexico and western most counties (AGFD 2014b). appropriate habitat. The species is of viability. in lower and upper Sonoran Texas. In Mexico: Baja California, There is a HDMS record of this predicted to occur throughout the Desertscrub near cliffs (AGFD Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, species within 5 miles of the Oatman quadrangle (AGFD 2019). If present in the area, a limited number of 2014b). Durango, northern Sinaloa, and Analysis Area. This species occurs in individuals may be impacted by the potential Zacatecas (AGFD 2014b, very low densities throughout its effects of the Project described in Section 5. NatureServe 2019)12. range (Adams 2003) Effects from exploratory drilling will be minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs will be operational at any one time and the total habitat disturbance associated with the Project is small compared to the species’ range across the southwestern U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole.

10 Accessed January 4, 2019. 11 Accessed January 4, 2019. 12 Accessed January 4, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 29

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Allen’s big-eared bat Sensitive Have been found in ponderosa 1,320–9,800 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: western Colorado, Most detections in Arizona have Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Idionycteris phyllotis) pine, pinyon-juniper, Mexican 2001b). southern Utah, southern Nevada, been from the southern Colorado geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss woodland, white fir forests, Arizona, and New Mexico. In Plateau, the Mogollon Rim and appropriate roosting and foraging of viability. riparian and Mohave Mexico: south from the US adjacent mountain ranges (AGFD habitat. This species is predicted to occur Desertscrub habitats. Rely on international border to Mexico 2001b). within the vast majority of the Oatman There are no known roost sites in the snags for temporary roost sites, D.F. and Michoacán (NatureServe quadrangle (AGFD 2019). There are no Analysis Area. If present in the area, a also roost in caves and 2018)13. HDMS records within 5 miles of the limited number of individuals may be abandoned mineshafts. Forages Analysis Area nor in the adjacent impacted by the potential effects of the on a variety of soft bodied quadrangles (AGFD 2019). Abandoned Project described in Section 5. Effects from insects (AGFD 2001b, USFS mine surveys within and adjacent to the exploratory drilling will be minimized as a 2011). Analysis Area did not detect this species maximum of five drill rigs will be (Diamond and Moreno 2019) operational at any one time and the total (Piorkowski et al. 2013) habitat disturbance associated with the Project is small compared to the species’ range across the western U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole. California leaf-nosed bat Sensitive Primarily inhabits Sonoran In Arizona, below 4,000 In the U.S.: southern Nevada, Occurs in southern portion of Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Macrotus californicus) Desertscrub. Roost sites have ft (AGFD 2014a). southern California, western Arizona below the Mogollon Rim, geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss large areas of ceiling and flying Arizona. In Mexico: Baja with occurrence records appropriate foraging and roosting of viability. space, and include abandoned California, Baja California Sur, concentrated in western portion of habitat. The predicted distribution of this underground mines, caves, and Sonora, southwestern Chihuahua, the state (AGFD 2014a). species includes the entirety of the There are no known roost sites in the rock shelters (AGFD 2014a). Tamaulipas, and northern Sinaloa Analysis Area (AGFD 2019)15. Although Analysis Area. If present in the area, a (AGFD 2014a, NatureServe there are no HDMS records of this limited number of individuals may be 2019)14. species within 5 miles of the Analysis impacted by the potential effects of the Area, there is an HDMS report of Project described in Section 5. Effects from California leaf-nosed bat in the Davis exploratory drilling will be minimized as a Dam quadrangle (AGFD 2019). This maximum of five drill rigs will be species has been detected within .5 miles operational at any one time and the total of the Analysis Area by AGFD habitat disturbance associated with the abandoned mine surveys (Diamond and Project is small compared to the species’ Moreno 2019), (Piorkowski et al. 2013) range across the western U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole.

13 Accessed December 31, 2018. 14 Accessed January 4, 2019. 15 Accessed April 18, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 30

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Cave myotis Sensitive Forages in desertscrub 300–8,800 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: southeastern Occurs primarily south of the Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Myotis velifer) vegetation and is tolerant of high 2002b). California, southern Nevada, Mogollon Rim, except for the geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss temperatures and low humidity. southern Utah, Arizona, New extreme southwestern portion of the appropriate roosting and foraging of viability. Roosts in caves, tunnels, Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, and state. Small numbers of this species habitat. Within the Analysis Area, there abandoned underground mines, Texas. Elsewhere: poorly known, overwinter in southeastern Arizona, are small isolated patches and a small There are no known roost sites in the buildings and under bridges but south from the US-Mexico but most of the population probably portion of the road extension of Analysis Area. If present in the area, a within a few miles of water. In international border to Honduras migrates further south (AGFD predicted distribution. However, the limited number of individuals may be Arizona, hibernation roosts are (AGFD 2002b, NatureServe 2002b, Hoffmeister 1986). species is predicted to occur in lower impacted by the potential effects of the in wet mine tunnels above 6,000 2019)16. elevations areas of the western portion of Project described in Section 5. Effects from ft (AGFD 2002b). the Oatman and adjacent quadrangles exploratory drilling will be minimized as a (AGFD 2019)17. There are no HDMS maximum of five drill rigs will be records within 5 miles of the Analysis operational at any one time and the total Area or in any of the surrounding habitat disturbance associated with the quadrangles (AGFD 2019). This species Project is small compared to the species’ has been detected within 5 miles of the range across the western U.S., Mexico, and Analysis area by AGFD abandoned mine central America. Thus, impacts of the surveys (Diamond and Moreno 2019), Project to individuals will not affect the (Piorkowski et al. 2013) species as a whole. PLANTS (3) Pinto beardtongue Sensitive Inhabits disturbed sites such as 1,800–5,480 ft (Smith Extreme northwestern Arizona, Occurs in the Black Mountains of Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Penstemon bicolor) washes, roadsides, and rocky 2005). extreme southern Nevada and northwestern Mohave County known geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss slopes, crevices, and talus in the adjacent southeastern California (SEINet 2019, Smith 2005). appropriate habitat. of viability. mountains. In Arizona, occurs (SEINet 2019, Smith 2005)18. on volcanic formations (Smith Habitat is present but is not likely to be 2005). greatly impacted, as washes that will be impacted by the Project will be minimal. Surface disturbance within the Analysis Area is small compared to the species’ range across Arizona, Nevada, and California. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole. Schott wire-lettuce Sensitive Grows in sandy soils in deserts, 330–6,560 ft (Gottlieb In the U.S.: southwestern Arizona, Occurs in Coconino, La Paz, Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Stephanomeria exigua ssp. sagebrush, creosote, pinyon- 2006). California, Colorado, Idaho, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima and Yuma the range of this subspecies and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss exigua) juniper and Joshua tree plant Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, counties (SEINet 2019)19. appropriate habitat. of viability. communities (Gottlieb 2006). Texas, Utah, and Washington. In Mexico: Baja California and Sonora Habitat is present but surface disturbance (AGFD 2005, Arizona Rare Plant because of the Project within the Analysis Committee 2001, Gottlieb 2006). Area is small compared to the species’ range across the western U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole.

16 Accessed January 4, 2019. 17 Accessed April 18, 2019. 18 Accessed January 4, 2019. 19 Accessed March 22, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 31

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Joshua tree Sensitive Inhabits fine, loose, well-drained In Arizona, below 3,000 In the U.S.: northwestern and west- Occurs in La Paz, Maricopa, Possible. The Analysis Area contains May impact individuals but is not likely (Yucca brevifolia) or gravelly flats and slopes in ft (Gucker 2006). central Arizona, southern Mohave, and Yavapai counties appropriate habitat and is within the to result in a trend toward listing or loss Mohave Desertscrub (Gucker California, southern Nevada and (SEINet 2018)21. known geographic range of the species. of viability. 2006). southwestern Utah. In Mexico: However, no individuals were observed northern Baja California (Gucker during field reconnaissance. Habitat is present but surface disturbance 2006, SEINet 2018)20. because of the Project within the Analysis Area is small compared to the species’ range across the western U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole. REPTILES (2) Sonoran Desert tortoise Sensitive Found on rocky slopes and 510–5,300 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: Arizona. In Mexico: Found south and east of the Present. Tortoises were observed by May impact individuals but is not likely (Gopherus morafkai) bajadas in the Mohave and 2015). Sonora (Edwards et al. 2016, Colorado river in all counties except WestLand biologists during field to result in a trend toward listing or loss Sonoran Desertscrub biotic Murphy et al. 2011). Apache, Coconino, Greenlee and reconnaissance. The Analysis Area is of viability. communities. Burrow in loose Navajo (AGFD 2015, USFWS within a contact zone between Mojave soil, below rocks and boulders, 2015b). The southern Black and Sonoran Desert tortoise and any See Section 5.3.2 for a detailed discussion. or find shelter under vegetation Mountains are a contact zone individuals are likely to have some degree and in caliche caves. Most between the Sonoran and Mojave of genetic admixture between the species commonly found in association tortoise, although the Mojave (Edwards et al. 2015). For this reason, we with paloverde and mixed cacti. lineage predominates in the area have not attempted to distinguish Forage on annual and perennial (Edwards et al. 2015, USFWS between the species, and consider both grasses, forbs, succulents, trees 2015b). to be present in the area. This species is and shrubs, and woody vines predicted to occur throughout the (AGFD 2015, USFWS 2015b). Analysis Area (AGFD 2019)22. HDMS In the contact zone between the records for this species occur within 5 species (i.e., the Black miles of the Analysis Area and the Mountains), G. morafkai generally surrounding quadrangles with the is found in foothills, on hillside exception of Secret Pass (AGFD 2019). slopes and more mountainous terrain than G. agassizii that is typically found on alluvial fans and valley bottoms (Edwards et al. 2015).

20 Accessed December 14, 2018. 21 Accessed December 14, 2018. 22 Accessed April 18, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 32

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 4. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Sensitive Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Mojave Desert tortoise Threatened Inhabits valleys, bajadas and hills Below sea level in Death In the Mojave Desert of Arizona, Occurs on both sides of the Present. Tortoises were observed by May impact individuals but is not likely (Gopherus agassizii) (populations with sandy loam or rocky soils in Valley to 5,000 ft California, Nevada and Utah Colorado River in extreme WestLand biologists during field to result in a trend toward listing or loss north and west of Mohave Desertscrub and Lower (AGFD 2010). (Edwards et al. 2015, Murphy et al. northwestern Mojave County and reconnaissance. The Analysis Area is of viability. the Colorado Colorado River Valley 2011). south through the Black Mountains within a contact zone between Mojave River, USFWS subdivision of the Sonoran (AGFD 2010, Edwards et al. 2015). and Sonoran Desert Tortoise and any See Section 5.3.2 for a detailed discussion. 1980b, 1990), Desert (Brown 1994). To escape individuals are likely to have some degree critical habitat extreme temperatures, excavates of genetic admixture between the species (USFWS 1980c, burrows under vegetation or (Edwards et al. 2015). For this reason, we 1994b); rocks. Will also use natural or have not attempted to distinguish populations east manmade caves. Typically between the species, and consider both of the Colorado associated with areas of creosote to be present in the area. Although there River Sensitive bush, areas with other are no HDMS records for this species in sclerophyll shrubs and with small the Analysis Area or surrounding cacti or areas with Joshua trees. quadrangles (AGFD 2019), it is likely due Forages on grasses, forbs and to the similarity of appearance between succulents (AGFD 2010). In the Mojave and Sonoran Desert tortoise and contact zone between the species older range maps that included the Black (i.e., the Black Mountains), G. Mountains as part of the Sonoran Desert morafkai generally is found in tortoise range (USFWS 2015b). foothills, hillside slopes and more mountainous terrain than G. agassizii that is typically found on alluvial fans and valley bottoms (Edwards et al. 2015).

WestLand Resources, Inc. 33

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 5. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Requested Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status BIRDS (3) Prairie falcon BLM Requested Inhabits areas with cliffs for In Arizona, 500–9,000 ft Breeding Range In Canada. Found throughout the state Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Falco mexicanus) nesting and open areas across a (Corman and Wise- southern British Columbia, (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). known geographic range and the species to result in a trend toward listing or loss variety of habitat types for Gervais 2005). southern Alberta and southwestern may use the area for foraging or nesting. of viability. foraging (Corman and Wise- Saskatchewan. In the U.S.: all There is no predictive distribution for Gervais 2005). western states and eastward to the this species, there are no HDMS records If present in the area, a limited number of Great Plains. In Mexico: Baja and there is no reported breeding activity individuals may be impacted by the potential California, Sonora, Chihuahua, within the Oatman quadrangle (AGFD effects of the Project described in Section 5. Coahuila, central Durango and San 2019, Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005)23. However, some of the Environmental Luis Potosí. Wintering Range In 2018 (eBird 2019)24, this species was Protection Measures developed by Golden Similar to breeding range except reported approximately 4 miles to the Vertex described in Section 2, particularly the northern extent of the winter is southwest of the western most extension pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds further south and wintering range of the Analysis Area along Silver Creek and buffers surrounding active nests, will is further west and east than Road. Probable breeding of this species minimize impacts to the species. Moreover, breeding range. Wintering range in has been reported from the Secret Pass effects from exploratory drilling will be Mexico includes areas further south quadrangle to the northeast of the minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs than breeding range, such as areas Analysis Area (AGFD 2019, Corman and will be operational at any one time and the in Baja California Sur, and Wise-Gervais 2005). total habitat disturbance associated with the Zacatecas and possibly even to Project is small compared to the species’ Oaxaca (Steenhof 2013). widespread range in the western and Great Plains regions of North America. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole. Bendire’s thrasher BLM Requested In Arizona, this thrasher is most Below 5,900 ft Breeding Range (poorly known) In Found in suitable habitat Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Toxostoma bendirei) commonly found in xeroriparian (Neotropical Birds the U.S.: Arizona, western New throughout the state (Corman and known geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss areas of Sonoran Desertscrub, Online 2019)25. Mexico, southern Utah, southwest Wise-Gervais 2005, England and appropriate habitat. There is no of viability. where it favors an abundance of and south-central Colorado, Laundehslayer 1993). predictive distribution available for this trees, shrubs, and cacti that are southern Nevada and adjacent east- species and it has not been reported to If present in the area, a limited number of adjacent to open areas. In central California. In Mexico: breed within the Oatman or surrounding individuals may be impacted by the potential sparsely vegetated desert areas it Sonora and Sinaloa. Wintering quadrangles (AGFD 2019, Corman and effects of the Project described in Section 5. is frequently found along dry Range In the U.S.: southern Wise-Gervais 2005). There are no However, some of the Environmental washes with scattered trees and Arizona and New Mexico. In HDMS records, but the species has been Protection Measures developed by Golden shrubs. It may also use rural Mexico: Sonora and Sinaloa reported from nearby Oatman and Vertex described in Section 2, particularly agricultural areas, and even (England and Laundehslayer 1993). Bullhead City (eBird 2019)26. pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds grasslands if enough shrubs are and buffers surrounding active nests, will present. In northern Arizona, the minimize impacts to the species. Moreover, species has been documented in effects from exploratory drilling will be grassy and shrubby areas with minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs scattered junipers and sagebrush will be operational at any one time and the (Corman and Wise-Gervais total habitat disturbance associated with the 2005). It is not typically found Project is small compared to the species’ within dense vegetation such as breeding and wintering range in the riparian woodland or heavily Southwest U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts vegetated desert washes, but may of the Project to individuals will not affect use fringes (England and the species as a whole. Laundehslayer 1993).

23 Accessed April 16, 2019. 24 Accessed April 16, 2019. 25 Accessed March 19, 2019. 26 Accessed March 19, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 34

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 5. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Requested Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Lucy’s warbler BLM Requested Breeds along perennial or In Arizona, 140–4,900 ft Breeding Range In the U.S.: Occurs in the southern and central Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Oreothlypis [=Leiothlypis] luciae) intermittently flooded drainages (Corman and Wise- southeastern California, extreme portions of the state, below the known geographic range and contains to result in a trend toward listing or loss supporting mesquite, ironwood, Gervais 2005). southern Nevada, extreme Mollogon Rim and along the some xeroriparian vegetation. There is of viability. paloverde, tamarisk, southern Utah, western and Colorado (including the Grand no predictive distribution for this species cottonwood, netleaf hackberry southern Arizona, southwest New Canyon) and the Little Colorado and it has not been reported to breed in If present in the area, a limited number of tickets, Arizona sycamore, velvet Mexico, western Texas and rarely rivers (Corman and Wise-Gervais the Oatman quadrangle (AGFD 2019, individuals may be impacted by the potential ash, Arizona alder or evergreen southwestern Colorado. In Mexico: 2005, Johnson et al. 2012). Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). There effects of the Project described in Section 5. oaks. Most common in mesquite Baja California, northwestern and are no HDMS records, but Lucy's However, some of the Environmental bosque and dense cottonwood- northeastern Sonora, and northern warbler has been recorded within 5 miles Protection Measures developed by Golden willow riparian woodlands Chihuahua. Wintering Range In of the project (eBird 2019)27. Vertex described in Section 2, particularly (Corman and Wise-Gervais Mexico: In the coastal areas of pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds 2005). Occasionally breeds in southern Sonora south to Oaxaca and buffers surrounding active nests, will xeroriparian vegetation along dry (Johnson et al. 2012). minimize impacts to the species. Moreover, washes (Johnson et al. 2012). effects from exploratory drilling will be minimized as a maximum of five drill rigs will be operational at any one time and the total habitat disturbance associated with the Project is small compared to the species’ range in the U.S. and Mexico. Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals will not affect the species as a whole. MAMMALS (2) Desert bighorn sheep BLM Requested Inhabits areas with steep, rocky ---- In the U.S.: northeastern and Found in desert mountain ranges Present. This species was observed by May impact individuals but is not likely (Ovis canadensis nelson) slopes with sparse vegetation. southern California, Oregon throughout the northwestern, WestLand biologists during field to result in a trend toward listing or loss Alluvial fans and washes are used (expatriated), northern Nevada, western and southern portion of the reconnaissance. The predicted of viability. foraging and connectivity Utah, southwestern Idaho, state. Additionally, occur along the distribution of this species is limited to a between more rugged areas. southern Arizona, southern New Virgin River Gorge and the Grand small southeastern portion of the See Section 5.3.1 for a detailed discussion. Occur in a variety of habitats Mexico and western Texas. In Canyon (BLM 2014). Analysis Area and more rugged areas of including "alpine dwarf-shrub, Mexico: Baja California, Baja the Black Mountains in the adjacent low sage, sagebrush, bitterbrush, California Sur, northwestern quadrangles (AGFD 2019)29. pinyon-juniper, palm oasis, Sonora and Chihuahua desert riparian, desert succulent (NatureServe 2019)28. shrub, Desertscrub, subalpine conifer, perennial grassland, montane chaparral, and montane riparian" (Dudek and ICF International 2012, p. 4). Ewes and their lambs are known to congregate within a few miles of water sources between May and October. Prefer water sources near steep rocky terrain that permits escape from predators (Dudek and ICF International 2012).

27 Accessed March 19, 2019. 28 Accessed March 21, 2019. 29 Accessed April 18, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 35

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 5. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of BLM Requested Species within the Analysis Area BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Kit fox BLM Requested Occurs in desert and semi-arid 1,300–6,230 ft (Cypher In the U.S.: Utah, Texas, Oregon, Found in the northwestern, Possible. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not likely (Vulpes macrotis) regions in mixed-grass, and List 2014). New Mexico, Nevada, Idaho, southern and east-central portions the known geographic range and has to result in a trend toward listing or loss shrublands, grassland and the California, Arizona and Colorado. of the state where suitable habitat appropriate habitat. However, no signs of viability. edges of pinyon-juniper In Mexico: Coahuila, Baja occurs (Meaney et al. 2006). of Kit fox were observed during field woodlands (Meaney et al. 2006). California, Baja California Sur, reconnaissance. The predicted There are no known roost sites in the Prefers flat to gently sloping Chihuahua, Sonora, San Luis distribution of this species includes the Analysis Area. If present in the area, a areas with loose soils. Tolerates Potosí, Nuevo León, Durango, and entirety of the Analysis Area (AGFD limited number of individuals may be some human activity and will Zacatecas (Cypher and List 2014). 2019)31. There are no HDMS records of impacted by the potential effects of the occasionally occupy agricultural this species within 5 miles of the Analysis Project described in Section 5. Effects from or urban areas. This species is Area or within any of the surrounding exploratory drilling will be minimized as a semi-fossorial and uses several quadrangles (AGFD 2019). maximum of five drill rigs will be subterranean dens, that they operational at any one time and the total construct or modify, scattered habitat disturbance associated with the throughout their home range Project is small compared to the species’ which encompasses range across the western U.S. and Mexico. approximately 1 to 4.5 square Thus, impacts of the Project to individuals miles. Consumes small will not affect the species as a whole. vertebrate and invertebrates (Cypher and List 2014)30.

30 Accessed October 11, 2019. 31 Accessed April 18, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 36

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Table 6. Screening Analysis: Potential for Occurrence of Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Species within the Analysis Area

Species Status Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Effects Determination

Bald eagle USFWS Bald and Breeding is concentrated in In Arizona, 460–7,930 Breeding Range In Canada. south A small resident population None. The Analysis Area does not No effect. The species is not expected to (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Golden Eagle coastal areas, along rivers, lakes ft (AGFD 2011a). of the tundra in every territory and occupies the central part of the state contain appropriate habitat. occur within the Analysis Area. Protection Act, or reservoirs. Typically breeds in province. In the U.S.: All states. In and a wintering population occurs in BLM Sensitive forested areas with edge habitat Mexico (very sparsely): Baja central and northern Arizona. within 1.3 miles of aquatic California, Sonora and Chihuahua Breeding territories occur at most habitats suitable for foraging. (Buehler 2000). Wintering Range large lakes and reservoirs and along Prefers areas of shallow water Appears to be expanding as the portions of large rivers and creeks, and shorelines for fishing and population numbers increase. Most such as the Gila River, Salt River, hunting wide variety of populations are resident with only San Pedro River, Verde River, Salt waterfowl, and small aquatic and the northern most populations in River, and Bill Williams River within terrestrial mammals. Fish are Alaska, the U.S. and Canada’s Gila, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, and preferred prey but carrion is used territories and northern portions of Yavapai counties (AGFD 2011a). extensively whenever western provinces withdrawing encountered. Nests away from southward or to coastal areas (Fink human disturbance in large trees et al. 2018). and rarely on cliff ledges or on the ground when trees are absent. Winters primarily in coastal areas or along major river systems with adequate prey availability and large trees for perching (Buehler 2000). Golden eagle Bald and Golden Range-wide, breeds in a wide In Arizona, 1,300– Breeding Range Holarctic Found in suitable habitat Possible. The Analysis Area is within No Take (Aquila chrysaetos) Eagle Protection variety of open habitats, with 9,000 ft (Corman and distribution. In North America, throughout the state (Corman and known geographic range and the species Act, BLM nests typically on cliffs, and Wise-Gervais 2005). primarily breeds in western portion Wise-Gervais 2005) but tend to might use the area for foraging. The May impact individuals but is not likely Sensitive avoids heavily forested areas of the continent from Alaska to vacate low desert areas during the Analysis Area has only limited cliff areas to result in a trend toward listing or loss (Kochert et al. 2002). In Arizona, central Mexico. Wintering Range summer (AGFD 2002c). and they are unlikely to be sufficient for of viability. prefers pinyon-juniper short to medium distance partial nesting. This species is not predicted to woodlands and Sonoran migrant, with northern most occur, nor are there breeding records No nests were detected during surveys of Desertscrub. Constructs large populations usually migratory. from the Oatman quadrangle (AGFD potential breeding sites within the Analysis nests on cliff ledges, rock Year-round and non-breeding 2019, Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Area (WestLand 2017 and this report). outcrops, tall trees or, rarely, populations from central However, the species is predicted to occur However, this species has been reported transmission towers (Corman Saskatchewan to British Columbia, in the adjacent Union Pass, Secret Pass, from within 5 miles of the Analysis Area and Wise-Gervais 2005). In the Canada and south throughout its Mount Nutt and Warm Springs (Appendix E) and the area is likely used for western U.S. average territory range and sparsely in the eastern quadrangles (AGFD 2019). There are foraging. The footprint of disturbance size ranges from 22 to 55 square U.S. (Kochert et al. 2002). HDMS records of this species within 5 associated with the Project is small relative miles (AGFD 2002c). miles of the Analysis Area and within the to the species’ territory size, and additional Secret Pass, Union Pass and Warm foraging habitat is immediately adjacent to Springs quadrangles adjacent to the the Analysis Area. Thus, given nearby Analysis Area (AGFD 2019). There are no alternative foraging areas and the ability of eBird (eBird 2019)32 records within or the eagles to forage widely across the near the Analysis Area. landscape, the disturbance associated with the Project is not expected to interfere with or disturb feeding to the extent of reducing the productivity of an eagle.

32 Accessed April 16, 2019.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 37

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

6.1. EFFECTS TO SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR WITHIN THE ANALYSIS AREA

The screening analysis described in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 identified several species known to occur in the Analysis Area that require further discussion. Potential effects of the Project on the desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, obligate cavern roosting bats and migratory birds are described in more detail as follows.

6.1.1. Desert Bighorn Sheep

The Black Mountains contain one of Arizona’s largest population of desert bighorn sheep (BLM 1993) and have been the source that many individuals used to reestablish herds elsewhere within Arizona and in neighboring states (Wild Sheep Working Group 2015). Currently, populations in the Black Mountains are affected by a strain of bacteria that can cause mortality from pneumonia (Justice-Allen et al. 2016).

Physical features and their influence on the availability of forage and potential for refuge from predators influence both where bighorn sheep will occur and their relative abundance. Steep terrain within the Analysis Area provides the opportunity for bighorn sheep to escape predators and is particularly important for lambing (USFWS 2000). There are lambing grounds in the more rugged areas to the east, however, ewes potentially utilize the entirety of the Analysis Area (personal communication from J. Acton, BLM, to D. Cerasale, WestLand). Between May and October, ewes with lambs typically remain within a few miles water sources (Dudek and ICF International 2012). Within the Analysis Area there is a single perennial spring (Silver Creek Spring). Directly east of the Analysis Area there are several additional perennial springs (Battleship Spring, Whiskey Spring and Grapevine Canyon Spring) (Figure 3). Range production (highest forage plant density/biomass) is predicted to be highest in the central and south-eastern portion of the Analysis Area and although not directly applicable to bighorn sheep, it is expected to correlate with the availability of forage for the species. The area of highest range production includes Mossback wash and portions of Silver Creek wash (Figure 5). Additionally, washes provide browse for a longer into the summer than other areas (USFWS 2000). The co-occurrence of available water and forage suggests that, when present in the area, ewes will likely concentrate in the southeastern portion of the Analysis Area. Males are loosely segregated from females, except during the breeding season, and are typically found in less steep and rugged terrain than ewes (USFWS 2000). Males may range more widely to take advantage high quality forage and are expected to occur throughout the Analysis Area. No high quality habitat or designated lambing grounds occur in the Analysis Area (Figure 5).

WestLand has observed bighorn sheep within the Analysis Area, and Golden Vertex personnel have regularly reported observations around the existing Moss Mine (personal communication from J. Bardswich, Golden Vertex, to D. Cerasale, WestLand). Behavioral studies of bighorn sheep have concluded that use of habitat or behavior by bighorn sheep are not adversely affected by mining

WestLand Resources, Inc. 38

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

activities for which they have had time to acclimatize (Jansen et al. 2007). Nevertheless, surface disturbance associated with the Project will affect approximately 500 acres of low-quality bighorn sheep habitat, approximately 380 acres of which will be permanent disturbance from mining facilities and approximately 110 acres of temporary disturbance from exploration drilling (Figure 5). Permanent surface disturbance will be associated with areas immediately surrounding existing mining operations, and disturbance associated with exploratory drilling will phased and temporary. Bighorn sheep that occur within the Analysis Area are also expected to experience increase noise, vibration, nighttime lighting, fugitive dust, and traffic as described in Section 5.

Golden Vertex has incorporated Environmental Protection Measures into the MPO that will minimize effects to bighorn sheep (Section 2) (Golden Vertex 2019). Fencing along the perimeter of mine faculties, enforced speed limits, and the strategic placement of water features will minimize interactions between bighorn sheep and mining activities. The installation of water features across the landscape will benefit foraging sheep, particularly lactating ewes. Golden Vertex’s invasive weed management plan and native reclamation plan will also minimize effects to sheep forage within the Analysis Area (Golden Vertex 2019).

Significant effects to bighorn sheep and sheep habitat that might lead towards loss of viability of the species or a trend towards listing under the ESA due to the Project is not expected. Surface disturbance will be primarily associated with areas immediately surrounding exiting mining and this disturbance is small relative to the habitat available for the species across its range of the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. Locally, surface disturbance caused by the Project will result in impacts to less than 8 percent of bighorn sheep habitat in the Analysis Area and less than 0.2 percent of sheep habitat within the boundaries of the Lake Havasu and Kingman Field Offices, combined.

6.1.2. Desert Tortoise

Mojave Desert tortoise (G. agassizii) and Sonoran Desert tortoise (G. morafkai) are sister species that hybridize in areas of secondary contact that occur in northwestern Arizona. The contact areas include the Black Mountains south of State Highway 68, the Hualapai Mountains, the Buck Mountains and the Arrastra Mountains (Edwards et al. 2015). The Mojave Desert tortoise, however, predominates in the Black Mountains, an area that was previously considered to be part of the Sonoran Desert tortoise range (USFWS 2015b). Mojave and Sonoran desert tortoise have similar habitat requirements with the exception that G. agassizii is more commonly found in valley areas than G. morafkai; both species can be found on bajadas and rocky slopes (AGFD 2010, 2015). Both species have similar diets and use burrows or natural cavity features for nesting and to shelter from extreme temperatures (AGFD 2010, 2015). Behavioral differences between the species in the timing of peak activity and reproduction may alter their exposure to disturbance activities associated with the Project. G. agassizii activity peaks in spring and up to three clutches of eggs are laid between late April and mid-July (AGFD 2010). In contrast, G. morafkai is active in early to mid-spring, followed by a period of reduced activity, and a

WestLand Resources, Inc. 39

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

larger second peak of surface activity during the summer monsoon (USFWS 2015b). Females lay a single clutch of eggs between late June and early August (USFWS 2015b). Because of the morphological similarity of G. agassizii and G. morafkai, genetic admixture between the two species in the Black Mountains, similar habitat requirements and susceptibility to threats, no attempt is made to distinguish between Mojave and Sonoran desert tortoise in this effects analysis.

WestLand has observed desert tortoise within the Analysis Area (Figure 6), and Golden Vertex personnel have regularly reported observations around the existing Moss Mine (personal communication from J. Bardswich, Golden Vertex, to D. Cerasale, WestLand). Personnel from the Lake Havasu Field Office have surveyed portions of Category II habitat within the proposed heap leach pad, and while tortoise burrows were located, none were active (personal communication from H. Mauney, BLM, to D. Cerasale, WestLand). Surface disturbance associated with the Project will affect approximately 76 acres of desert tortoise Category II habitat as a result of the expansion of the heap leach facility and associated infrastructure and approximately 441 acres of desert tortoise Category III habitat associated with other mining facilities and exploratory drilling (Figure 6). The Project will not affect desert tortoise Category I habitat. Permanent surface disturbance will be associated with areas immediately surrounding existing mining operations, and disturbance associated with exploratory drilling will be temporary, and will not occur at one time.

Golden Vertex has also incorporated Environmental Protection Measures into the MPO that will minimize effects to desert tortoise. Fencing along the perimeter of mine faculties, pre-construction surveys, clearance of work areas prior to the commencement of activities, tortoise training, enforced speed limits, and the blockage of new exploration roads from OHV use will minimize effects of tortoise from interaction with mining and other human activities. Good housekeeping practices will minimize attraction of tortoise predators into the Analysis Area. Burial of portions of the waterline along Silver Creek Road and BLM Road 7717 will allow for tortoise movement and preclude the waterline from becoming a barrier to movement across existing roads. Golden Vertex’s commitment to address threats from abandoned mine features will help restore and improve tortoise habitat within the Analysis Area. Golden Vertex’s noxious weed management plan (MPO Section 15.10) and reclamation plan (MPO Section 17.0) will also minimize effects to tortoise forage within the Analysis Area (Golden Vertex 2019).

Significant effects to tortoise and tortoise habitat that might lead towards loss of viability of the species due to the Project are not expected. Because the Analysis Area is within a hybrid zone between two tortoise species, the USFWS did not consider tortoise in the Analysis Area as part of its explicit analysis of the status of the species (USFWS 2015a) used for the determination of whether to propose the species for listing under the ESA. As such, impacts to tortoise within the Analysis Area will not result in a trend towards listing of the species because impacts within this hybrid zone have no effect on the USFWS’ listing analysis of desert tortoise populations. Surface disturbance will also be largely associated with areas immediately surrounding exiting mining and this disturbance is small relative to

WestLand Resources, Inc. 40

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

the habitat available for the species across their ranges of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. Surface disturbance because of the Project will result in impacts to less than 7 percent of Category II and 7 percent of Category III desert tortoise habitat in the Analysis Area and less than 0.02 percent of Category II and approximately 0.02 percent of Category III desert tortoise habitat within the boundaries of the Lake Havasu and Kingman Field Offices, combined.

6.1.3. Cavern Obligate Bats

WestLand has not observed any obligate cavern roosting bats (Townsend’s big-eared bat, California leaf-nosed bat or cave myotis) within the Analysis Area (Table 3). Cavern obligate bats have been documented by AGFD to occur within 0.5 miles of the Analysis Area (AGFD 2019), and it is possible that suitable cavern habitat (abandoned mine features) exists within the Analysis Area. The available roosting habitat within the analysis area is limited and the scope of disturbance is unlikely to eliminate all potential roosting habitat in the analysis area. The permanent disturbance area of approximately 356.89 acres has the potential to eliminate possible roosting habitat while the 141.45 acres of temporary disturbance from exploration drilling is not expected to impact known roosts (Figure 2; Table 1). Permanent surface disturbance will be associated with areas immediately surrounding existing mining operations, and disturbance associated with exploratory drilling will be phased and temporary.

Golden Vertex has incorporated Environmental Protection Measures into the MPO that will minimize effects to bats (Golden Vertex 2019). Where practicable, water sources will be used to benefit bat species by using concepts and designs described in Bat Conservation International’s “Water for Wildlife handbook for Ranchers and Range Managers” (Taylor and Tuttle 2007). Should substantive bat mortality events attributable to Golden Vertex activities occur, Golden Vertex will coordinate with AGFD and BLM regarding the potential placement of water sources to benefit bats.

Significant effects to cavern obligate bats and habitat that might lead towards loss of viability of the species or a trend towards listing under the ESA due to the Project are not expected. Surface disturbance will be primarily associated with areas immediately surrounding existing mining and this disturbance is small relative to the habitat available for these species across their total range. Locally, surface disturbance caused by the Project may result in the loss of potential roosts via closure of abandoned mines within the 380-acre permanent surface disturbance area. These closures will affect individuals and will not result in population decline or a trend towards listing.

6.1.4. Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. § 701-712) was originally passed in 1918 and implements United States (U.S.) obligations under several international treaties and conventions. The MBTA makes it unlawful to “kill” or “take” a migratory bird, nest, or egg, except as permitted under

WestLand Resources, Inc. 41

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

regulations. The MBTA allows the USFWS to adopt regulations to permit some types of migratory bird “take” which regulations provide the legal authority for bird hunting. In addition, the USFWS is responsible for maintaining the list of birds that fall under the protection of the MBTA. The most recent amendments to the MBTA species list occurred in 2013 and increased the list of protected species to 1,026 (USFWS 2013b). Per Executive Order 13186, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 the BLM entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory bird populations, minimizes intentional take of migratory bird species, and ensures that environmental analyses under NEPA or similar review processes evaluate the effects on migratory birds emphasizing species of concern. Based on the priorities described in the MOU, this memorandum analyzes Project effects to both migratory birds and important bird areas (IBAs) identified by the National Audubon Society within the Analysis Area.

This screening analysis was used to evaluate the effects within the Analysis Area to migratory birds and any IBAs in the vicinity. Potential direct and indirect activities associated with the Project where unintentional “take” is possible include the clearing of vegetation and the presence of a pit lake that results in direct impacts to birds protected under the MBTA. Indirect impacts to migratory birds, such as increased noise levels, light and dust are not expected to unintentionally wound or kill birds protected by the MBTA. Furthermore, vegetation clearing and the potential for direct injury or mortality to birds during vegetation clearing activities would be limited to a short period of time across the Analysis Area. The impact of the pit lake has the potential to impact individuals through localized bioaccumulation, but is not likely to impact migratory birds at a larger scale (Howie 2010). The Analysis Area is not located within an IBA, and the nearest IBA is at the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge IBA, more than 40 miles from the Analysis Area. The Analysis Area is not located within an IBA, and given the distance to the nearest IBA, the Project is not expected to have long-term negative effects on bird populations within the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge IBA.

The three migratory bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act were reviewed for their potential to occur in the Analysis Area: Yuma clapper rail (Rallus obsoletus yumanensis), yellow-billed cuckoo western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Coccyzus americanus) and the California Least tern (Sternula antillarum browni). All three species were determined to have no potential to occur within the vicinity of the Analysis Area, as the Analysis Area would not provide foraging and/or breeding habitat for either species (Table 2). Additionally, no critical habitat or proposed critical habitat occurs within or adjacent to the Analysis Area.

Six migratory bird species listed as BLM sensitive have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (Table 3 and Appendix F). Of these six species, five were considered possible in the Analysis Area (Table 3) and a single was unlikely (Ferruginous hawk [Buteo regalis]) (Appendix F). The five species that may occur in the Analysis Area included; Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), Gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). Three BLM requested species;

WestLand Resources, Inc. 42

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), Lucy’s warbler (Oreothlypis luciae) and Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) also have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (Figure 4). It was determined that this Project may impact individuals of these species, but it is not likely to result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. The effects to these birds covered under the MBTA will not be substantial due to; 1) The limited surface disturbance relative to the overall range and distribution of these species, 2) Temporary effects of drilling activities 3) Small spatial effects of bioaccumulation for the pit lake (Howie 2010), and 4) effects to xeroriparian areas (areas where we would expect higher densities and species richness of migratory species) will be relatively minimal.

Moreover, Golden Vertex has incorporated mitigation measures into the project to explicitly reduce effects to migratory bird species. Specifically, Golden Vertex will; 1) if construction must take place during the breeding season, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted within a 150- foot radius from the construction area, 2) will place buffers around all known nests where possible to avoid disturbance, 3) conduct nest surveys every two weeks until construction is completed, and 4) conduct burrowing owls clearance surveys prior to construction. There could be effects to migratory bird species, however these effects are not expected to be significant enough to negatively affect bird populations or priority habitats.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 43

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

7. REFERENCES

Adams, Rick A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: Natual History, Ecology, and Conservation. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.

Arizona Burrowing Owl Working Group. 2009. Burrowing Owl Project Clearance Guidance for Landowners. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. January 2009.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001a. Bonytailed chub (Gila elegans). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. October 10, 2001. 5 pp.

______. 2001b. Huachuca Golden Aster (Heterotheca rutteri). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department. December 21, 2001. 4 pp.

______. 2001c. Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) Draft. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. February 21, 2001. 7 pp.

______. 2002a. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. December 3, 2002. 6 pp.

______. 2002b. Cave Myotis (Myotis velifer). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Novemeber 15, 2002. 7 pp.

______. 2002c. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. July 27, 2002. 5 pp.

______. 2005. Schott Wire Lettuce (Stephanomeria schottii). Unpublished Abstract Compiled and Edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. August 25, 2005. 5 pp.

______. 2006. Lemmon’s Milkweed (Asclepias lemmonii). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 5 pp.

______. 2010. Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Unpublished Species Abstract Compiled and Edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. December 14, 2010. 11 pp.

______. 2011a. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. September 2, 2011. 9 pp.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 44

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

______. 2011b. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. October 31, 2011. 6 pp.

______. 2012. Northern Mexican Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. July 20, 2012. 8 pp.

______. 2014a. California Leaf-nosed Bat (Macrotus californicus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. January 29, 2014. 7 pp.

______. 2014b. Greater Western Bonneted Bat (Eumops perotis californicus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. January 29 2014. 6 pp.

______. 2015. Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus morafkai). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. October 7, 2015. 10 pp.

______. 2019. "HabiMapTM Arizona [online]." Arizona Game and Fish Department. http://habimap.org/.

Arizona Rare Plant Committee. 2001. Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide: A Collaboration of Agencies and Organizations. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Baltosser, W. H., and P. E. Scott. 1996. "Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America, edited by A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Beier, Paul, Emily Garding, and Daniel Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Mount Perkins-Warm Springs Linkage Design. Prepared for Arizona Game and Fish Department. Flagstaff, Arizona: School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. 78.

Brown, David E. 1994. Biotic Communities – Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press.

Buehler, David A. 2000. "Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)." In The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Kingman Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management. September 1993.

______. 2007. Record of Decision and Lake Havasu Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan. Department of the Interior. Lake Havasu City, Arizona: Lake Havasu Field Office. May 10, 2007.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 45

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

______. 2014. Arizona Bighorn Sheep Occupied Habitat and Domestic Sheep Grazing Allotments [Map]. Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab. February 2, 2014.

______. 2018. Draft Kingman Field Office Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment. United States Department of the Interior. Kingman, Arizona: Kingman Field Office. August, 2018.

California Department of Transportation. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.3, Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, California: California Department of Transportation. September 2013. 190.

Chronic, H. 1983. Roadside Geology of Arizona: Mountain Press Publishing Company.

Corman, Troy, and Cathryn Wise-Gervais. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Cypher, B., and R. List. 2014. Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: IUCN.

Diamond, J.M., and E. Moreno. 2019. Bat Gate Installation at Five Abandoned Mine Features on Lands Managed by the Kingman Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management Fy2018, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Contracts Branch.

Dudek, and ICF International. 2012. Mammals Big Horn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) Baseline Biology Report Draft. Prepared for California Energy Commission. Sacramento, California. March 2012. eBird. 2019. eBird: An Online Database of Bird Distribution and Abundance. eBird website. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Eddleman, W. R., and Courtney J. Conway. 2018. "Ridgway's Rail (Rallus obsoletus), version 2.1." In The Birds of North America, edited by P. G. Rodewald. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Edwards, T., K. H. Berry, R. D. Inman, T. C. Esque, K. E. Nussear, C. A. Jones, and M. Culver. 2015. "Testing Taxon Tenacity of Tortoises: Evidence for a Geographical Selection Gradient at a Secondary Contact Zone." Ecology and Evolution 5 (10):2095-114.

Edwards, Taylor, Alice Karl, Mercy Vaughn, Philip Rosen, Christina Meléndez Torres, and Robert W. Murphy. 2016. "The Desert Tortoise Trichotomy: Mexico Hosts a Third, New Sister-Species of Tortoise in the Gopherus morafkai–G. agassizii group." ZooKeys 562:131-158.

England, A. Sidney, and W. F. Laundehslayer. 1993. "Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Farmer, Andrew M. 1993. "The Effects of Dust on Vegetation - A Review." Environmental Pollution 79:63-75.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 46

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Fernald, M. L. 1897. "A Systematic Study of the United States and Mexican Species of Pectis." Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 33 (5):57-86.

Fink, D., T. Auer, A. Johnston, M. Strimas-Mackey, M. Iliff, and S. Kelling. 2018. eBird Status and Trends. Version: November 2018. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. November 2018.

Gauthreaux, Sidney A., and Carroll G. Belser. 2006. "Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Migrating Birds." In Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, edited by C. Rich and T. Longcore. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 67-93.

Golden Vertex Corp. 2019. Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Final Mine Plan of Operations Mohave County, Arizona.

Gottlieb, L. D. 2006. "Stephanomeria exigua subsp. exigua." In Flora of North America North of Mexico, edited by Flora of North America Editorial Committee. New York and Oxford. 20+. 19 Volume 19, p. 354.

Gucker, Corey L. 2006. Yucca brevifolia. Fire Effects Information System [Online]. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.

Hakonson, T.E., Meyer, V.F., Dean, A. 2009. Significance of Biological Productivity of Pit Lakes for Interpreting Ecological Risks. Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. 179-186.

Halterman, Murrelet D., Matthew J. Johnson, Jennifer A. Holmes, and Stephen A. Laymon. 2016. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Techniques and Methods: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 45 pp.

Hoffmeister, Donald F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona: The University of Arizona Press and The Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Howie, M. 2010. The Lateral Extent and Spatial Variation of Mercury Exposure in Birds and their Prey near a Polluted River. Master's Thesis. College of William and Mary.

Hughes, Janice M. 2015. "Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America [online], edited by P.G. Rodewald. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

International Organization for Standardization. 1996. Acoustics-Attenuation of Sound During Propogation Outdoors-Part 2: General Method of Calculation. ISO 9613-2:1996. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. December 15, 1996.

Jansen, Brian D, Paul R Krausman, James R Heffelfinger, and James C Jr de Vos. 2007. "Influence of mining on behavior of bighorn sheep." The Southwestern Naturalist 52 (3):418-424.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 47

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Jepsen, S., D. F. Schweitzer, B. Young, N. Sears, M. Ormes, and S. H. Black. 2015. Conservation Status and Ecology of Monarchs in the United States. Arlington, Virginia and Portland, Oregon: NatureServe and Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 36 pp.

Johnson, R. Roy, H.K. Yard, and B.T. Brown. 2012. "Lucy's Warbler (Oreothlypis luciae), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. F. Poole. Ithaca, New York: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Justice-Allen, A.E., E. Butler, J. Pebworth, A. Munig, P. Wolff, and T.E. Besser. 2016. Investigation of Pneumonia Mortalities in a Mycoplasma-positive Desert Bighorn Sheep Population and Detection of a Different Strain of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae. Proceedings of the Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 20. 68-72.

Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. "Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America [online]. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Meaney, C. A., M. Reed-Eckert, and G. P. Beauvais. 2006. Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. [Online]. U. S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 43 pp.

Moore, William S., Peter Pyle, and Karen L. Wiebe. 2017. "Gilded Flicker (Colaptes chrysoides), version 2.1." In The Birds of North America Online, edited by P.G. Rodewald. Ithaca, New York: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Morris, Gail M., Christopher Kline, and Scott Morris. 2015. "Status of Danaus Plexippus Population in Arizona." Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 69 (2):1-17.

Murphy, Robert W., Kristin H. Berry, Taylor Edwards, Alan E. Leviton, Amy Lathrop, and J. Daren Riedle. 2011. "The Dazed and Confused Identity of Agassiz’s Land Tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, Testudinidae) with the Description of a New Species, and its Consequences for Conservation." ZooKeys 113:39-71.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. "The PLANTS Database." U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://plants.usda.gov. Greensboro, N.C.

NatureServe. 2018. "NatureServe Explorer: an Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. Version 7.1." NatureServe. http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Arlington, Virginia

______. 2019. "NatureServe Explorer: an Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. Version 7.1." NatureServe. http://explorer.natureserve.org. Arlington, Virginia

Neotropical Birds Online. 2019. "Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei)." Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu/Species-Account/nb/species/benthr. Ithaca, New York

Piorkowski, M., J.M. Diamond, and M.F. Ingraldi. 2013. An Evaluation of Bat Habitat in Abandoned Mine Features within the Moss Mine Project Area Abandoned Mine. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Wildlife Contract Branch.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 48

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Poot, Hanneke, Bruno J. Ens, Han de Vries, Maurice A.H. Donners, Marcel R. Wernand, and Joop M. Marquenie. 2008. "Green Light for Nocturnally Migrating Birds." Ecology and Society 13 (2):47.

Poulin, Ray L, Danielle Todd, E A Haug, B A Millsap, and M S Martell. 2011. "Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. F. Poole. Ithaca, New York: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Prichard, D., F. Berg, W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, R. Leinard, S. Leonard, M. Manning, C. Nobel, and J. Staats. 2003. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. TR 1737-16. Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Rich, Catherine, and Travis Longcore. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Edited by Catherine Rich and Travis Longcore. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

SEINet Portal Network. 2018. http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php. SEINet Portal Network.

______. 2019. http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php. SEINet Portal Network.

Sheppard, Jay M. 1996. Le Conte's Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New York: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Sherwin, Rick, and Antoinette Piaggio. 2005. "Townsend's Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)." Western Bat Working Group. http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/.

Smith, Frank J. 2005. Current Knowledge and Conservation Status of Penstemon bicolor (Brandegee) Clokey & Keck (Plantaginaceae), the two-tone beardtongue. Prepared for the Nevada Power Company and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Original edition, updated March 2006 by James D. Morefield. 30 pp.

Soil Survey Staff. 2018. "Web Soil Survey." U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

Steenhof, Karen. 2013. "Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America [online], edited by A. F. Poole. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Stromberg, J.C., K.E. McCluney, M.D. Dixon, and T. Meixner. 2013. "Dryland Riparian Ecosystems in the American Southwest: Sensitivity and Resilience to Climatic Extremes." Ecosystems 16 (3):411-415.

Stromberg, Juliet C., Kenneth J. Bagstad, James M. Leenhouts, Sharon J. Lite, and Elizabeth Makings. 2005. "Effects of Stream Flow Intermittency on Riparian Vegetation of a Semiarid Region River (San Pedro River, Arizona)." River Research and Applications 21 (8):925-938.

Stromberg, Juliet C., B. Richter, and R. Tiller. 1996. "Effects of Groundwater Decline on Riparian Vegetation of Semiarid Regions: The San Pedro River, Arizona." Ecological Applications 6 (1):113-131.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 49

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Taylor, Daniel, and Merlin Tuttle. 2007. Water for Wildlife A Handbook for Ranchers and Range Managers. Bat Conservation International.

The Nature Conservancy. 2012. Brown and Lowe's Biotic Communities of the Southwest. Digital version of David E. Brown and Charles H. Lowe’s 1981 Map: The Nature Conservancy of Arizona. June 27, 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Native Fish and Wildlife; Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 11, 1967. Federal Register, 32:4001.

______. 1970. Appendix D—United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife. U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Register, 35:8491-8498.

______. 1980a. Determination That the Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans) is an Endangered Species; Final Rule. Federal Register, 45:27710-27713.

______. 1980b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing as Threatened with Critical Habitat for the Beaver Dam Slope Population of the Desert Tortoise in Utah. Federal Register, 45:55654-55666.

______. 1980c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Notice of Review. Federal Register, 45:82480-82569.

______. 1985. Recovery Plan for the California Least Tern, Sterna antillarum browni. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Original edition, Initial publication April 2, 1980, Revised September 27, 1985. 112.

______. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. April 2. Federal Regiser, 55:12178-12191.

______. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; the Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Determined to be an Endangered Species. U.S. Department of the Interior. October 23, 1991. Federal Register, 56:54957-54967.

______. 1994a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Colorado River Endangered Fishes: Razorback Sucker, Colorado Squawfish, Humpback Chub, and Bonytail Chub. March 21, 1994. Federal Register, 59:13374-13400.

______. 1994b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. Federal Register, 59:5820-5866.

______. 2000. Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninuslar Ranges, California. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1. 271.

______. 2006. California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad, California: Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 50

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

______. 2009. Yuma Clapper Rail Recovery Plan (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). Draft First Revision. Southwest Region. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 73 pp.

______. 2012. Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Denver, Colorado: Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. July 30, 2012.

______. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-Headed Gartersnake, Proposed Rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 10, 2013. Federal Register, 78:41550-41608.

______. 2013b. List of Migratory Bird Species Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as of December 2, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 2, 2013.

______. 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo; Proposed Rule. U.S. Department of the Interior. August 15, 2014. Federal Register, 79:48548-48652.

______. 2014b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Final Rule. U.S. Department of the Interior. October 3, 2014. Federal Register, 79:59992-60038.

______. 2014c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-Headed Gartersnake; Final Rule. Federal Register: U.S. Department of the Interior. July 8, 2014. 38678-38746.

______. 2015a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Sonoran Desert Tortoise as an Endangered or Threatened Species. October 6, 2015. Federal Register, 80:60321-60335.

______. 2015b. Sonoran Desert Tortoise Species Status Assessment Report, Appendix A - D. Version 1.0. Tucson, Arizona: Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. September 2015. A1-D14.

______. 2018a. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Lakewood, Colorado: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6. September 25, 2018.

______. 2018b. Species Status Assessment Report for the Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus. Final. Denver, Colorado: Mountain-Prairie Region 6. August, 2018.

U.S. Forest Service. 2011. FSM 2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management; Chapter 2670 - Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Forest Service Manual (FSM). Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2). May 25, 2011.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods,. RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. October 13, 2005. 1-24.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 51

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx Biological Evaluation for Phase III Moss Mine Expansion and Exploration Project Golden Vertex Corp

Walker, D. A., and K. R. Everett. 1987. "Road Dust and its Environmental Impact on Alaskan Taiga and Tundra." Arctic and Alpine Research 19 (4):479-489.

Weather Underground. 2019. "Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport, AZ." https://www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/az/bullhead-city/KIFP/date/2019-1.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 2013. Comments on the 2013 Proposal By U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to List the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) as Threatened. Prepared for The Arizona Mining Association. Tucson, Arizona: WestLand Resources, Inc. December 2013.

______. 2017. Biological Survey Report in Support of the Golden Vertex-Moss Mine Proposed Amended Powerline and Access Road Right-of-Way Applications. Prepared for the Golden Vertex Corporation. Tucson, Arizona: WestLand Resources, Inc. October 12, 2017.

White, Clayton M., Nancy J. Clum, Tom J. Cade, and W. Grainger Hunt. 2002. "Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America [online], edited by A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Wild Sheep Working Group. 2015. Records of Wild Sheep Translocations-United States and Canada, 1992-Present. USA: Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. June 2015. 178.

WoodPLC, Inc. 2019. Moss Mine September 2019 Spring Survey and Groundwater Sampling. Presentation by WoodPLC.com.

Zhan, Shuai, Wei Zhang, Kristjan Niitepõld, Jeremy Hsu, Juan Fernández Haeger, Myron P. Zalucki, Sonia Altizer, Jacobus C. de Roode, Steven M. Reppert, and Marcus R. Kronforst. 2014. "The Genetics of Monarch Butterfly Migration and Warning Colouration." Nature 514 (7522):317- 321.

WestLand Resources, Inc. 52

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\20200313_Moss Mine_BE.docx

FIGURES

Path: M:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\MPO\mxd\PhaseIIIepoMPO\01 Vicinity.mxd Date: 11/14/2019 User: evinson

ARIZONA PROJECT VICINITY

PROJECT LOCATION Nevada

FLAGSTAFF

Arizona PHOENIX

YUMA

TUCSON

California

Approximate Scale 1 Inch = 10 Miles

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

C0 HW Y 1 55

S ILV E R C R E E K RD Legend

Analysis Area CO H Surface Management W Y 10 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Private Land (No Color)

Analysis Area in: T19N, R20W, Portions of Sections 3-6, T20N, R20W, Portions of Sections 18-21, and 27-34, GOLDEN VERTEX CORP T20N, R21W, Portions of Sections 13, 14, 23-26 and 36, Biological Evaluation Mohave County, Arizona, Davis Dam USGS 1:100,000 Quadrangle for the Golden Vertex Moss Mine Surface Management: BLM 2018, WRI modified 2019 Phase III EPO/MPO

0 4,000 8,000 VICINITY MAP Feet 0 1,250 2,500 Figure 1 WestLand Resources ± Meters Path: M:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\MPO\mxd\PhaseIIIepoMPO\02 AnalysisArea.mxd Date: 12/2/2019 User: evinson 10 11 12 07 08 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, 09 10 11 Analysis Area in: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, T19N, R20W, Portions of Sections 3-6, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, T20N, R20W, Portions of Sections 18-21, and 27-34, IGN, and the GIS User Community T20N, R21W, Portions of Sections 13, 14, 23-26 and 36, Mt Nutt Mohave County, Arizona, Data Sources: BLM PLSS, 15 Wilderness Area 14 Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc 13 18 3/11/2019, 07/01/2019 and 09/19/2019 17 16 Image Source: ArcGIS Online, World Imagery 9/10/2017 15 14

Legend

Pond BLM 7717 Bypass Trail

22 BLM 7717 Realignment 23 19 24 Silver Creek Road Eastern Pit 20 21 Alternative Access Route to Far Western Pit 22 ! 23 Phase III Leach Pad !

Barren Rock Stockpile West Powerline and Waterline

! Analysis Area Moss Mine Boundary ! Event Pond Mine Feature

! ! Proposed Mine Facility Pregnant Pond ! ! ! 27 ! Exploration Area 26 Mine Offices Barren Rock Stockpile East 25 ! 30 Private Land Barren Pond 29 28 Heap Leach Pad 27 Bullhead Bajada Area of Critical Assay Lab Expansion 26 Environmental Concern Mt Nutt Wilderness BLM Road 7717 Realignment and Utility Corridor

0 1,800 3,600 34 Feet 35 36 31 0 600 1,200 32 ± Meters 33 34 35

T20N, R21W T20N, R20W T19N, R21W T19N, R20W WestLand Resources

03 02 01 06 05 04 03 02 GOLDEN VERTEX CORP Biological Evaluation for the Golden Vertex Moss Mine Phase III EPO/MPO

10 11 12 07 ANALYSIS AREA 08 09 10 11 Figure 2 Path: M:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\MPO\mxd\PhaseIIIepoMPO\03 Springs.mxd Date: 12/2/2019 User: evinson

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Analysis Area in: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, T19N, R20W, Portions of Sections 3-6, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, T20N, R20W, Portions of Sections 18-21, and 27-34, Secret Pass T20N, R21W, Portions of Sections 13, 14, 23-26 and 36, IGN, and the GIS User Community ESprings Mohave County, Arizona, Data Sources: USGS, Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc 3/11/2019, 07/01/2019 and 09/19/2019 Image Source: ArcGIS Online, World Imagery 9/10/2017

Legend

E Spring

Mt Nutt BLM 7717 Bypass Trail Wilderness Area BLM 7717 Realignment Silver Creek Road Alternative Access Route to Phase III Leach Pad Powerline and Waterline Analysis Area Bighorn ESpring Moss Mine Boundary Mine Feature Eastern Pit Proposed Mine Facility

Far Western Pit ! ! Exploration Area Barren Rock Stockpile West Private Land

! Bullhead Bajada Area of Critical

! Environmental Concern Event Pond Mt Nutt Wilderness

! ! Pregnant Pond ! ! ! ! Mine Offices Barren Rock Stockpile East ! Barren Pond Heap Leach Pad Assay Lab Expansion

0 1,800 3,600 BLM Road 7717 Realignment Feet and Utility Corridor Grapevine 0 600 1,200 Canyon ± Meters ESpring

Silver Creek ESpring EWhiskey Upper Silver Spring ECreek Spring WestLand Resources Battleship ESpring

GOLDEN VERTEX CORP Biological Evaluation for the Golden Vertex Moss Mine Phase III EPO/MPO

SPRINGS IN THE VICINITY OF THE ANALYSIS AREA Figure 3 Path: M:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\MPO\mxd\PhaseIIIepoMPO\04 WildlifeLinkage.mxd Date: 12/2/2019 User: evinson

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Analysis Area in: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, T19N, R20W, Portions of Sections 3-6, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, T20N, R20W, Portions of Sections 18-21, and 27-34, IGN, and the GIS User Community T20N, R21W, Portions of Sections 13, 14, 23-26 and 36, Mohave County, Arizona, Data Sources: BLM PLSS, Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc E 3/11/2019, 07/01/2019 and 09/19/2019 A\B C\D Arizona Missing Linkages: Majka, D., Garding, E., and P. Beier. 2008. Image Source: ArcGIS Online, World Imagery 9/10/2017

Legend

Pond BLM 7717 Bypass Trail BLM 7717 Realignment Mt Nutt Wilderness Area Silver Creek Road Alternative Access Route to Phase III Leach Pad Powerline and Waterline Analysis Area

! ! Moss Mine Boundary

! Mine Feature

! Proposed Mine Facility Exploration Area ! ! ! ! ! ! Private Land ! Bullhead Bajada Area of Critical Environmental Concern Mt Nutt Wilderness Mount Perkins - Warm Spring Wildlife Linkage Design

0 2,000 4,000 Feet 0 600 1,200 ± Meters

WestLand Resources

GOLDEN VERTEX CORP Biological Evaluation for the Golden Vertex Moss Mine Phase III EPO/MPO

MOUNT PERKINS-WARM SPRINGS WILDLIFE LINKAGE AND PROPOSED PHASE III MOSS MINE FOOTPRINT Figure 4 Path: M:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\MPO\mxd\PhaseIIIepoMPO\05 BighornSheepHabitatObservations.mxd Date: 12/2/2019 User: evinson

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Analysis Area in: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, T19N, R20W, Portions of Sections 3-6, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, T20N, R20W, Portions of Sections 18-21, and 27-34, T20N, R21W, Portions of Sections 13, 14, 23-26 and 36, IGN, and the GIS User Community Mohave County, Arizona, Data Sources: Kingman BLM Field Office 2019, Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc Mt Nutt 3/11/2019, 07/01/2019 and 09/19/2019 Wilderness Area Image Source: ArcGIS Online, World Imagery 9/10/2017

Legend

Pond BLM 7717 Bypass Trail BLM 7717 Realignment Silver Creek Road Eastern Pit Alternative Access Route to Phase III Leach Pad Far Western Pit ! ! Powerline and Waterline Barren Rock Stockpile West Analysis Area ! Moss Mine Boundary

! Mine Feature Event Pond Proposed Mine Facility

! ! Exploration Area Pregnant Pond ! ! ! ! Private Land Mine Offices Barren Rock Stockpile East ! Bullhead Bajada Area of Critical Barren Pond Environmental Concern Heap Leach Pad Assay Lab Expansion Mt Nutt Wilderness Bighorn Sheep Habitat (BLM) BLM Road 7717 Realignment Lambing Grounds and Utility Corridor High Value Low Value

0 1,500 3,000 Feet 0 500 1,000 ± Meters

WestLand Resources

GOLDEN VERTEX CORP Biological Evaluation for the Golden Vertex Moss Mine Phase III EPO/MPO

BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT CATEGORIES AND OBSERVATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE ANALYSIS AREA Figure 5 Path: M:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\MPO\mxd\PhaseIIIepoMPO\06 TortoiseHabitatObservations.mxd Date: 12/2/2019 User: evinson

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Analysis Area in: DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, T19N, R20W, Portions of Sections 3-6, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, T20N, R20W, Portions of Sections 18-21, and 27-34, T20N, R21W, Portions of Sections 13, 14, 23-26 and 36, IGN, and the GIS User Community Mohave County, Arizona, Data Sources: AZ Tortoise Habitat acquired 2/6/2017 from BLM, Tortoise Survey Records (1988 and 1989) acquired on 10/11/2017 from the BLM, Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc 3/11/2019, 07/01/2019 and 09/19/2019 Image Source: ArcGIS Online, World Imagery 9/10/2017

_^ Legend

") Mt Nutt Pond BLM 7717 Bypass Trail Wilderness Area August 2018 Observations BLM 7717 Realignment Tortoise Observed in the Silver Creek Road ^_ Field Eastern Pit Alternative Access Route to )" Potential Tortoise Burrow Phase III Leach Pad Far Western Pit ! ! )" Tortoise Scat Observed in Powerline and Waterline the Field Barren Rock Stockpile West Analysis Area Tortoise Survey Records ! (BLM) Moss Mine Boundary )" ! (! 2 Tortoise burrows 1988 Mine Feature Event Pond )" (! Live tortoise 1988 Proposed Mine Facility

! ! _^ (! Tortoise scat 1988 Exploration Area Pregnant Pond ! ! ! ! (! Mine Offices Barren Rock Stockpile East Tortoise scat 1989 Private Land ! Barren Pond (! Tortoise shell 1989 Bullhead Bajada Area of ! Critical Environmental ( (! Heap Leach Pad Assay Lab Expansion )" Concern )")" (! (!(! Mt Nutt Wilderness BLM Road 7717 Realignment AZ Tortoise Habitat (BLM) and Utility Corridor Category 2 Category 3

(!(!

") 0 1,500 3,000 Feet (! 0 500 1,000 (! ± Meters (! )"

WestLand Resources

_^)" GOLDEN VERTEX CORP Biological Evaluation for the Golden Vertex Moss Mine (! Phase III EPO/MPO (! BLM DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT CATEGORIES AND OBSERVATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE ANALYSIS AREA Figure 6

APPENDIX A

USFWS IPaC Query Results

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 9828 North 31st Ave #c3 Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517 Phone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies_Main.html

In Reply Refer To: October 02, 2018 Consultation Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-SLI-0008 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017 Project Name: Moss Mine

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is providing this list under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The list you have generated identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, and designated and proposed critical habitat, that may occur within one or more delineated United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles with which your project polygon intersects. Each quadrangle covers, at minimum, 49 square miles. In some cases, a species does not currently occur within a quadrangle but occurs nearby and could be affected by a project. Please refer to the species information links found at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/MiscDocs/AZSpeciesReference.pdf .

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the habitats upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of Federal trust resources and to consult with us if their projects may affect federally listed species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, we recommend preparing a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment to determine whether the project may 10/02/2018 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017 2 affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If the Federal action agency determines that listed species or critical habitat may be affected by a federally funded, permitted or authorized activity, the agency must consult with us pursuant to 50 CFR 402. Note that a "may affect" determination includes effects that may not be adverse and that may be beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. You should request consultation with us even if only one individual or habitat segment may be affected. The effects analysis should include the entire action area, which often extends well outside the project boundary or "footprint.” For example, projects that involve streams and river systems should consider downstream effects. If the Federal action agency determines that the action may jeopardize a proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat, the agency must enter into a section 7 conference. The agency may choose to confer with us on an action that may affect proposed species or critical habitat. Candidate species are those for which there is sufficient information to support a proposal for listing. Although candidate species have no legal protection under the Act, we recommend considering them in the planning process in the event they become proposed or listed prior to project completion. More information on the regulations (50 CFR 402) and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in our Endangered Species Consultation Handbook at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.

We also advise you to consider species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when authorized by the Service. The Eagle Act prohibits anyone, without a permit, from taking (including disturbing) eagles, and their parts, nests, or eggs. Currently 1026 species of birds are protected by the MBTA, including species such as the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea). Protected western burrowing owls are often found in urban areas and may use their nest/burrows year-round; destruction of the burrow may result in the unpermitted take of the owl or their eggs.

If a bald eagle (or golden eagle) nest occurs in or near the proposed project area, you should evaluate your project to determine whether it is likely to disturb or harm eagles. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines provide recommendations to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles: https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/ nationalbaldeaglenanagementguidelines.pdf https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/eagle-management.php.

The Division of Migratory Birds (505/248-7882) administers and issues permits under the MBTA and Eagle Act, while our office can provide guidance and Technical Assistance. For more information regarding the MBTA, BGEPA, and permitting processes, please visit the following: https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/incidental-take.php. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for communication tower projects (e.g. cellular, digital

10/02/2018 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017 3 television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/communication- towers.php.

Activities that involve streams (including intermittent streams) and/or wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). We recommend that you contact the Corps to determine their interest in proposed projects in these areas. For activities within a National Wildlife Refuge, we recommend that you contact refuge staff for specific information about refuge resources. If your action is on tribal land or has implications for off-reservation tribal interests, we encourage you to contact the tribe(s) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to discuss potential tribal concerns, and to invite any affected tribe and the BIA to participate in the section 7 consultation. In keeping with our tribal trust responsibility, we will notify tribes that may be affected by proposed actions when section 7 consultation is initiated.

We also recommend you seek additional information and coordinate your project with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Information on known species detections, special status species, and Arizona species of greatest conservation need, such as the western burrowing owl and the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) can be found by using their Online Environmental Review Tool, administered through the Heritage Data Management System and Project Evaluation Program https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.

For additional communications regarding this project, please refer to the consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. If we may be of further assistance, please contact our following offices for projects in these areas:

Northern Arizona: Flagstaff Office 928/556-2001 Central Arizona: Phoenix office 602/242-0210 Southern Arizona: Tucson Office 520/670-6144

Sincerely, /s/ Steven L. Spangle Field Supervisor

Attachment

Attachment(s):

▪ Official Species List

10/02/2018 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017 1

Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 9828 North 31st Ave #c3 Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517 (602) 242-0210

10/02/2018 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017 2

Project Summary Consultation Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-SLI-0008

Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017

Project Name: Moss Mine

Project Type: MINING

Project Description: An open-pit gold/silver operation in NW Arizona, USA. Pilot plant operations began in 2014.

Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/35.05414617258831N114.4454399537394W

Counties: Mohave, AZ

10/02/2018 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017 3

Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Birds NAME STATUS California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911

Yuma Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3505

Reptiles NAME STATUS Northern Mexican Gartersnake Thamnophis eques megalops Threatened There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7655

10/02/2018 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2019-E-00017 4

Fishes NAME STATUS Bonytail Chub Gila elegans Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1377

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/530

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

APPENDIX B

BLM Arizona Bureau Sensitive Species List (February 2017)

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona - Bureau Sensitive Species List (February 2017) INVERTEBRATES Common Name Scientific Name Status ASDO CRDO GDO PDO Habitat/Notes Arizona Cave Amphipod Stygobromus arizonensis BLMS h wet caves and mines Bylas Springsnail Pyrgulopsis arizonae BLMS v springs (Positive 90-day Finding) Desert Springsnail Pyrgulopsis deserta BLMS h springs along the Virgin River Gila Tryonia Tryonia gilae BLMS v springs (Positive 90-day Finding) Grand Wash Springsnail Pyrgulopsis bacchus BLMS v springs (Positive 90-day Finding) Kingman Springsnail Pyrgulopsis conica BLMS v springs (Positive 90-day Finding) Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus plexippus BLMS v v v v (Positive 90-day Finding) Sonoran Talussnail Sonorella magdalenensis BLMS v talus slopes (Positive 90-day Finding) FISH Common Name Scientific Name Status ASDO CRDO GDO PDO Habitat/Notes Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus BLMS h h Conservation Agreement FE Bonytail Chub Gila elegans w/CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Desert Pupfish Cyprinodon macularius FE v v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Desert Sucker Catostomus clarki BLMS v v v v aquatic Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis BLMS v Conservation Agreement FE Gila Chub Gila intermedia w/CH v-CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Gila Topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis FE v v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Little Colorado Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata FT v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Little Colorado Sucker Catostomus sp. BLMS v Conservation Agreement FE Loach Minnow Tiaroga cobitis w/CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Longfin Dace Agosia chrysogaster BLMS v v v aquatic FE Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus w/CH v-CH h-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan pT Conservation Agreement, See Federal Roundtail Chub Gila robusta BLMS v v Register Sonora Sucker Catostomus insignis BLMS v v v aquatic Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus BLMS v v v v aquatic FE Spikedace Meda fulgida w/CH v-CH h See Federal Register & Recovery Plan FE Virgin River Chub Gila seminuda w/CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Conservation Agreement (Positive 90- Virgin Spinedace Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis BLMS v day Finding)

Attachment 1-1 FE Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus w/CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan AMPHIBIANS Common Name Scientific Name Status ASDO CRDO GDO PDO Habitat/Notes mid elevation riparian/wetlands Arizona Toad Anaxyrus microscaphus BLMS v v v v (Positive 90-day Finding) FT Chiricahua Leopard Frog Lithobates chiricahuensis w/CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Great Plains Narrow-mouthed Toad Gastrophryne olivacea BLMS v v healthy grasslands Lowland Burrowing Treefrog Smilisca fodiens BLMS v healthy grasslands Lowland Leopard Frog Lithobates yavapaiensis BLMS v v v wetlands Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens BLMS v v h wetlands Plains Leopard Frog Lithobates blairi BLMS h wetlands Conservation Agreement, See Federal Relict Leopard Frog Lithobates onca BLMS h v Register (12 Month Finding) Sonoran Green Toad Anaxyrus retiformis BLMS v v healthy grasslands REPTILES Common Name Scientific Name Status ASDO CRDO GDO PDO Habitat/Notes healthy grasslands, north end of Wilcox Arizona Striped Whiptail Aspidoscelis arizonae BLMS v Playa (Positive 90-day Finding) healthy grasslands (Positive 90-day Desert Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus edwarsii BLMS h Finding) Desert Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata BLMS v healthy grasslands Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Phrynosoma mcallii BLMS v Conservation Agreement FT Mojave Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii w/CH v-CH v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Uma scoparia BLMS v sand FT Narrow-headed Gartersnake Thamnophis rufipunctatus w/pCH h-pCH See Federal Register New Mexico Ridge-nosed Rattlesnake Crotalus willardi obscurus FT v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Northern Mexican FT Gartersnake Thamnophis eques megalops w/pCH v-pCH v-pCH h-pCH See Federal Register Slevin's Bunchgrass Lizard Sceloporus slevini BLMS v healthy grasslands Sonoran Desert Tortoise Gopherus morafkai BLMS v v v Conservation Agreement Sonora Mud Turtle Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense BLMS v v v Riparian/aquatic Yuman Desert Fringe-toed Lizard Uma rufopunctata BLMS v sand (Positive 90-day Finding) BIRDS (breeding) Common Name Scientific Name Status ASDO CRDO GDO PDO Habitat/Notes American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum BLMS v v v v cliffs Arizona Botteri's Sparrow Peucaea botterii arizonae BLMS v healthy grasslands Attachment 1-2 Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum ammolegus BLMS v healthy grasslands Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BLMS h v v v Conservation Agreement [BGEPA] Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum BLMS v v dense Sonoran scrub washes California Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus BLMS v h marshes See Federal Register, Recovery Plan California Condor Gymnogyps californianus FE/NEP v h h h & 10(j) Rule California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni FE h h h See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Desert Purple Martin Progne subis hesperia BLMS h v v saguaro cacti Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis BLMS v h v h healthy grasslands Gilded Flicker Colaptes chrysoides BLMS v v v saguaro cacti Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos BLMS v v v v [BGEPA] Le Conte's Thrasher Toxostoma lecontei BLMS v v v remote creosote scrub FT Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida w/CH h-CH h v h See Federal Register & Recovery Plan See Federal Register, Recovery Plan Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis FE/NEP h & 10(j) Rule Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis atricapillus BLMS v v h h healthy forests Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus BLMS v v v v healthy pinyon pine Southwestern Willow FE Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus w/CH v-CH v-CH v-CH h See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea BLMS v v v v grasslands, undeveloped valley bottoms Western Yellow-billed FT Cuckoo (DPS) Coccyzus americanus w/pCH v-pCH v-pCH v-pCH v-pCH See Federal Register Yuma Ridgway’s (Clapper) Rail Rallus obsoletus (=longirostris) yumanensis FE h v h v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan MAMMALS Common Name Scientific Name Status ASDO CRDO GDO PDO Habitat/Notes Allen’s Big-eared Bat Idionycteris phyllotis BLMS v v v h caves, mines Arizona Myotis Myotis occultus BLMS h v v h caves, mines Banner-tailed Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys spectabilis BLMS v healthy grasslands Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus BLMS v healthy grasslands California Leaf-nosed Bat Macrotus californicus BLMS h v v v caves, mines Cave Myotis Myotis velifer BLMS v v v caves, mines Greater Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis californicus BLMS v v v v caves, mines Gunnison's Prairie Dog Cynomys gunnisoni BLMS h v h healthy grasslands Houserock Valley Chisel- toothed Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys microps leucotis BLMS v Atriplex scrub FE Hualapai Mexican Vole Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis pDelist v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan FE Jaguar Panthera onca w/CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan FE Lesser Long-nosed Bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae pDelist v v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan

Attachment 1-3 See Federal Register, Recovery Plan Mexican Gray Wolf Canis lupus baileyi FE/NEP h h & 10(j) Rule Mexican Long-tongued Bat Choeronycteris mexicana BLMS v caves/mines Ocelot Leoparus pardalis FE h See Federal Register & Recovery Plan See Federal Register, Recovery Plan Sonoran Pronghorn Antilocapra americana sonoriensis FE/NEP v h v & 10(j) Rule Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum BLMS v h h h caves/ mines Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii BLMS v v v v caves/mines PLANTS Common Name Scientific Name Status ASDO CRDO GDO PDO Habitat/Notes FE Acuna Cactus Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis w/CH v-CH v-CH See Federal Register narrow range, limestone deposits, Burro Aquarius Milkvetch Astragalus newberryi var. aquaria BLMS v Creek area narrow range, floodplain terraces in Aravaipa Sage Salvia amissa BLMS v shady canyons Aravaipa Woodfern Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis BLMS v v h few scattered springs Arizona Cliffrose Purshia subintegra FE v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Arizona Eryngo Eryngium sparganophyllum BLMS v Arid land springs, cienegas Arizona Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus FE v h See Federal Register Arizona Sonoran Rosewood Vauquelinia californica ssp. sonorensis BLMS v v relict species in shady canyons narrow range, rocky outcrops in canyons w/Madrean Woodland (Positive 90-day Bartram Stonecrop Graptopetalum bartramii BLMS v Finding) Blue Sand Lily Triteleiopsis palmeri BLMS v sand dunes and sandy soils Brady Pincushion Cactus Pediocactus bradyi FE v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan California Flannelbush Fremontodendron californicum BLMS v v relict populations in shady canyons Chihuahua Breadroot Healthy grasslands (Positive 90-day (Scurfpea) Pediomelum pentaphyllum BLMS v Finding) narrow range, cliff faces of Gila Clifton Rock Daisy Perityle ambrosiifolia BLMS v Conglomerate Dalhouse Spleenwort Asplenium (=Ceterach) dalhousiae BLMS v cliff face seeps, Mule Mountains narrow range, Moenkopi Formation Diamond Butte Milkvetch Astragalus toanus var. scidulus BLMS v badlands w/red soils FE Fickeisen Plains Cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae w/CH v-CH v-CH See Federal Register narrow range, floodplain terraces shady Fish Creek Fleabane Erigeron piscaticus BLMS v canyons (Positive 90-day Finding) narrow range, floodplain terraces in Gentry Indigo Bush Dalea tentaculoides BLMS v shady canyons Giant Sedge Carex spissa BLMS v v springs FE Gierisch Mallow Sphaeralcea gierischii w/CH v-CH See Federal Register Grand Canyon Rose Rosa stellata var. abyssa BLMS v narrow range, limestone cliff rims Attachment 1-4 Holmgren (Paradox) Milk FE Vetch Astragalus holmgreniorum w/CH v-CH See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Huachuca Golden Aster Heterotheca rutteri BLMS v narrow range, Plains Grassland, LCNCA Huachuca Milkvetch Astragalus hypoxylus BLMS h narrow range FE Huachuca Water Umbel Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva w/CH v-CH See Federal Register Jones Cycladenia Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii FT v See Federal Register Joshua Tree Yucca brevifolia BLMS v v v (Positive 90-day Finding) Kaibab (Paradine) Plains Cactus Pediocactus paradinei BLMS v Conservation Agreement Kearney’s Blue Star Amsonia kearneyana FE v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Kearney Sumac Rhus kearneyi ssp. kearneyi BLMS v relict species in shady canyons Kofa Mountain Barberry Berberis harrisoniana BLMS v v relict species in shady canyons narrow range, red soils of Moenkopi Marble Canyon Indigo Bush Psorothamnus arborescens var. pubescens BLMS v Formation, Marble Canyon narrow range, limestone cliff rims, Marble Canyon Milkvetch Astragalus cremnophylax var. hevronii BLMS v Marble Canyon Mt Trumbull Beardtongue Penstemon distans BLMS v narrow range, limestone soils Murphey Agave Agave murpheyi BLMS h v low numbers, desert foothills, central AZ Nichol Turk’s Head Cactus Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii FE v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Paria Plateau (Siler) Fishhook Cactus Sclerocactus sileri BLMS v narrow range, sandy soils, Paria Plateau narrow range, limestone deposits, Burro Parish Phacelia Phacelia parishii BLMS v Creek area, dry lake beds, Red Lake narrow range, higher elevation desert Parish Wild Onion Allium parishii BLMS v mountains, Mohave Mountains Peebles Navajo Cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus var. peeblesianus FE v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan Pima Indian Mallow Abutilon parishii BLMS h v h rocky slopes, desert mountains Pima Pineapple Cactus Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina FE v See Federal Register narrow range, desert washes, Black Pinto Beardtongue Penstemon bicolor BLMS v Mountains few populations, leaf litter under Purple-spike Coralroot Hexalectris warnockii BLMS v Madrean Woodland, Mule Mtns narrow range, Shinarump Hills, Round-leaf Broom Errazurizia rotundata BLMS v Holbrook area San Pedro River Wild narrow range, limestone and clay soils of Buckwheat Eriogonum terrenatum BLMS v St. David Formation, SPRNCA Sand Food Pholisma sonorae BLMS v sand dunes, Yuma area Scaly Sand Food Pholisma arenarium BLMS v sand dunes, Cactus Plain Schott Wire-lettuce Stephanomeria exiqua ssp. exiqua BLMS v h sand dunes, sandy soils narrow range, gypsum soils of September 11 Stickleaf Mentzelia memorabilis BLMS v Harrisburg Formation Siler Pincushion Cactus Pediocactus sileri FT v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan

Attachment 1-5 narrow range, gypsum soils of Silverleaf Sunray Enceliopsis argophylla BLMS v v Moenkopi Formation

Smooth Catseye Cryptantha semiglabra BLMS v extremely narrow range narrow range, sandy loam soils, Virgin Sticky Wild Buckwheat Eriogonum viscidulum BLMS v River Valley narrow range, sandy loam soils, Virgin Three-cornered Milkvetch Astragalus geyeri var. triquetrus BLMS v River Valley Tumamoc Globeberry Tumamoca macdougalii BLMS v v few populations, Sonoran Desert plains Welch’s Milkweed Asclepias welshii FT v See Federal Register & Recovery Plan White-margined Penstemon Penstemon albomarginatus BLMS v narrow range, sandy loam soils

Status and Occurrence Abbreviations:

Abbreviation Definition FE Federally Endangered pE Proposed Endangered FT Federally Threatened pT Proposed Threatened CH Designated Critical Habitat pCH Proposed Critical Habitat pDelist Proposed for Delisting NEP Nonessential Experimental Population designated pursuant to Section 10(j) of the ESA DPS Distinct Population Segment C Federal Candidate BLMS Arizona Bureau of Land Management Sensitive BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 v Known Occurrence within the last 10 years h Historic or Potential Occurrence Positive 90-day Finding Petition for listing was found to contain substantial information indicating listing may be warranted. ASDO Arizona Strip District Office: [Grand Canyon – Parashant NM & Arizona Strip Field Office including Vermillion Cliffs NM] CRDO Colorado River District Office: [Kingman, Lake Havasu and Yuma field offices] Gila District Office: [Safford Field Office including Gila Box Riparian NCA & Tucson Field Office including Ironwood Forest NM, San Pedro GDO Riparian NCA, & Las Cienegas NCA] PDO Phoenix District Office: [Hassayampa Field Office including Agua Fria NM & Lower Sonoran Field Office including Sonoran Desert NM]

Attachment 1-6

APPENDIX C

Representative Photographs of Analysis Area

Photo 1. View of the Analysis Area from the southeast. The vegetation community is characterized by

creosotebush and white bursage as the dominant species, with ratany and Mohave buckwheat as common associates.

Photo 2. Mine adit located at the base of a cliff on a canyon wall in the north of the Analysis Area. Tall canyon walls with steep cliff faces like the one pictured were only prevalent in the north of the Analysis Area. Canyon bottom was pure sand with sparse vegetation throughout.

Representative Photographs Appendix C

Photopage 1

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\Appendices\C_Photo_pages.docx Photo 3. Tadpoles utilizing residual water in the Silver

Creek Wash in the south of the Analysis Area. Puddle at left is approximately 1 m2.

Photo 4. Seep located in the north of the Analysis

Area. Several red-spotted toads (Bufo punctatus) were observed using water feature.

Representative Photographs Appendix C Photopage 2

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\Appendices\C_Photo_pages.docx Photo 5. Abandoned mine shaft located south of Silver

Creek Road near southern border of Analysis Area.

Photo 6. Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) on bajada formation in Mohave desertscrub. Black Mountains and Mount Nutt Wilderness in the background.

Photo 7. View of Silver Creek Wash downstream of Silver Creek Spring. Plant species observed in the wash include mesquite trees, palo verde, desert baccharis, and desert willow. Evidence of ungulate use in the wash present in the foreground.

Representative Photographs Appendix C Photopage 3

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\Appendices\C_Photo_pages.docx Photo 8. Desert bighorn sheep habitat in the west of the Analysis Area. Gravelly slopes leading to steep cliff sides were more common in the north and west of the Analysis Area. Photo to the left displays location of observed bighorn sheep by WestLand biologists during field visit.

Photo 9. Tortoise burrow observed during field

reconnaissance. Desert tortoise (Gopherus sp.) was present in the opening on the right.

Representative Photographs Appendix C Photopage 4

Q:\Jobs\1200's\1203.05\ENV\Moss Mine BE\20200313_Submittal\Appendices\C_Photo_pages.docx

APPENDIX D

AGFD HDMS Query Results

Arizona Environmental Online Review Tool Report

Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission To conserve Arizona's diverse wildlife resources and manage for safe, compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for current and future generations.

Project Name: Moss BE

Project Description: BE

Project Type: Mining, Extraction Other minerals (copper, limestone, cinders, shale, salt), Other minerals (copper, limestone, cinders, shale, salt)

Contact Person: Gerald Berthelette

Organization: WestLand Resources, Inc.

On Behalf Of: CONSULTING

Project ID: HGIS-08192

Please review the entire report for project type and/or species recommendations for the location information entered. Please retain a copy for future reference.

Page 1 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Disclaimer:

1. This Environmental Review is based on the project study area that was entered. The report must be updated if the project study area, location, or the type of project changes. 2. This is a preliminary environmental screening tool. It is not a substitute for the potential knowledge gained by having a biologist conduct a field survey of the project area. This review is also not intended to replace environmental consultation (including federal consultation under the Endangered Species Act), land use permitting, or the Departments review of site-specific projects. 3. The Departments Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) data is not intended to include potential distribution of special status species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many areas may contain species that biologists do not know about or species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur there. HDMS data contains information about species occurrences that have actually been reported to the Department. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and surveys that have been conducted have varied greatly in scope and intensity. Such surveys may reveal previously undocumented population of species of special concern. 4. HabiMap Arizona data, specifically Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) under our State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI), represent potential species distribution models for the State of Arizona which are subject to ongoing change, modification and refinement. The status of a wildlife resource can change quickly, and the availability of new data will necessitate a refined assessment.

Locations Accuracy Disclaimer: Project locations are assumed to be both precise and accurate for the purposes of environmental review. The creator/owner of the Project Review Report is solely responsible for the project location and thus the correctness of the Project Review Report content.

Page 2 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Recommendations Disclaimer:

1. The Department is interested in the conservation of all fish and wildlife resources, including those species listed in this report and those that may have not been documented within the project vicinity as well as other game and nongame wildlife. 2. Recommendations have been made by the Department, under authority of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 5 (Amusements and Sports), 17 (Game and Fish), and 28 (Transportation). 3. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized or avoided by the recommendations generated from information submitted for your proposed project. These recommendations are preliminary in scope, designed to provide early considerations on all species of wildlife. 4. Making this information directly available does not substitute for the Department's review of project proposals, and should not decrease our opportunity to review and evaluate additional project information and/or new project proposals. 5. Further coordination with the Department requires the submittal of this Environmental Review Report with a cover letter and project plans or documentation that includes project narrative, acreage to be impacted, how construction or project activity(s) are to be accomplished, and project locality information (including site map). Once AGFD had received the information, please allow 30 days for completion of project reviews. Send requests to: Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000 Phone Number: (623) 236-7600 Fax Number: (623) 236-7366 Or [email protected] 6. Coordination may also be necessary under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA). Site specific recommendations may be proposed during further NEPA/ESA analysis or through coordination with affected agencies

Page 3 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Page 4 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Page 5 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Page 6 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Special Status Species and Special Areas Documented within 5 Miles of Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BGA S 1B Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl SC S S 1B Bat Colony Echinomastus johnsonii Johnson's Fishhook Cactus SR Eumops perotis californicus Greater Western Bonneted Bat SC S 1B Gopherus morafkai Sonoran Desert Tortoise CCA S S 1A Heloderma suspectum cinctum Banded Gila Monster SC 1A Mount Perkins - Warm Springs Wildlife Corridor Linkage Design Pyrgulopsis conica Kingman Springsnail SC S 1A Xyrauchen texanus Razorback Sucker LE 1A

Note: Status code definitions can be found at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/statusdefinitions/ .

Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted within 5 Miles of Project Vicinity based on Predicted Range Models Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Aix sponsa Wood Duck 1B Ammospermophilus harrisii Harris' Antelope Squirrel 1B Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit SC 1A Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BGA S 1B Aspidoscelis flagellicauda Gila Spotted Whiptail 1B Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl SC S S 1B Baeolophus ridgwayi Juniper Titmouse 1C Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern 1B Calypte costae Costa's Hummingbird 1C Castor canadensis American Beaver 1B Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren 1C Colaptes chrysoides Gilded Flicker S 1B Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Pale Townsend's Big-eared Bat SC S S 1B Crotalus cerberus Arizona Black Rattlesnake 1B Empidonax wrightii Gray Flycatcher 1C Euderma maculatum Spotted Bat SC S S 1B Eumops perotis californicus Greater Western Bonneted Bat SC S 1B Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon SC S S 1A Gopherus morafkai Sonoran Desert Tortoise CCA S S 1A Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle SC, S S 1A BGA Heloderma suspectum Gila Monster 1A Incilius alvarius Sonoran Desert Toad 1B

Page 7 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted within 5 Miles of Project Vicinity based on Predicted Range Models Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense Desert Mud Turtle S 1B Lasiurus blossevillii Western Red Bat S 1B Lasiurus xanthinus Western Yellow Bat S 1B Lithobates onca Relict Leopard Frog CCA S 1A Lontra canadensis sonora Southwestern River Otter SC 1B Macrotus californicus California Leaf-nosed Bat SC S 1B Melanerpes uropygialis Gila Woodpecker 1B Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow 1B Melozone aberti Abert's Towhee S 1B Microtus mexicanus Mexican Vole 1B Myotis occultus Arizona Myotis SC S 1B Myotis velifer Cave Myotis SC S 1B Myotis yumanensis Yuma Myotis SC 1B Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed Free-tailed Bat 1B Oreoscoptes montanus Sage Thrasher 1C Oreothlypis luciae Lucy's Warbler 1C Perognathus longimembris Little Pocket Mouse No 1B Status Pseudacris hypochondriaca Baja California Treefrog 1B Pyrgulopsis conica Kingman Springsnail SC S 1A Rallus obsoletus yumanensis Yuma Ridgway's Rail LE 1A Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler 1B Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped Sapsucker 1C Spizella atrogularis Black-chinned Sparrow 1C Spizella breweri Brewer's Sparrow 1C Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-tailed Bat 1B Toxostoma lecontei LeConte's Thrasher S 1B Troglodytes pacificus Pacific Wren 1B Vireo bellii arizonae Arizona Bell's Vireo 1B Vireo vicinior Gray Vireo S 1C Vulpes macrotis Kit Fox No 1B Status

Species of Economic and Recreation Importance Predicted within 5 Miles of Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Callipepla gambelii Gambel's Quail Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer Ovis canadensis nelsoni Nelson Desert Bighorn Sheep Puma concolor Mountain Lion

Page 8 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Species of Economic and Recreation Importance Predicted within 5 Miles of Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Zenaida asiatica White-winged Dove Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove

Project Type: Mining, Extraction Other minerals (copper, limestone, cinders, shale, salt), Other minerals (copper, limestone, cinders, shale, salt)

Project Type Recommendations: Fence recommendations will be dependant upon the goals of the fence project and the wildlife species expected to be impacted by the project. General guidelines for ensuring wildlife-friendly fences include: barbless wire on the top and bottom with the maximum fence height 42", minimum height for bottom 16". Modifications to this design may be considered for fencing anticipated to be routinely encountered by elk, bighorn sheep or pronghorn (e.g., Pronghorn fencing would require 18" minimum height on the bottom). Please refer to the Department's Fencing Guidelines located on Wildlife Friendly Guidelines page, which is part of the WIldlife Planning button at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/.

During the planning stages of your project, please consider the local or regional needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and access to habitat needs. Loss of this permeability prevents wildlife from accessing resources, finding mates, reduces gene flow, prevents wildlife from re-colonizing areas where local extirpations may have occurred, and ultimately prevents wildlife from contributing to ecosystem functions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, control of prey numbers, and resistance to invasive species. In many cases, streams and washes provide natural movement corridors for wildlife and should be maintained in their natural state. Uplands also support a large diversity of species, and should be contained within important wildlife movement corridors. In addition, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions can be facilitated through improving designs of structures, fences, roadways, and culverts to promote passage for a variety of wildlife. Guidelines for many of these can be found at: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/.

Consider impacts of outdoor lighting on wildlife and develop measures or alternatives that can be taken to increase human safety while minimizing potential impacts to wildlife. Conduct wildlife surveys to determine species within project area, and evaluate proposed activities based on species biology and natural history to determine if artificial lighting may disrupt behavior patterns or habitat use. Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety. Narrow spectrum bulbs should be used as often as possible to lower the range of species affected by lighting. All lighting should be shielded, canted, or cut to ensure that light reaches only areas needing illumination.

Minimize potential introduction or spread of exotic invasive species. Invasive species can be plants, animals (exotic snails), and other organisms (e.g., microbes), which may cause alteration to ecological functions or compete with or prey upon native species and can cause social impacts (e.g., livestock forage reduction, increase wildfire risk). The terms noxious weed or invasive plants are often used interchangeably. Precautions should be taken to wash all equipment utilized in the project activities before leaving the site. Arizona has noxious weed regulations (Arizona Revised Statutes, Rules R3-4-244 and R3-4-245). See Arizona Department of Agriculture website for restricted plants, https://agriculture.az.gov/. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has information regarding pest and invasive plant control methods including: pesticide, herbicide, biological control agents, and mechanical control, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome. The Department regulates the importation, purchasing, and transportation of wildlife and fish (Restricted Live Wildlife), please refer to the hunting regulations for further information https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/regulations.

Page 9 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

Minimization and mitigation of impacts to wildlife and fish species due to changes in water quality, quantity, chemistry, temperature, and alteration to flow regimes (timing, magnitude, duration, and frequency of floods) should be evaluated. Minimize impacts to springs, in-stream flow, and consider irrigation improvements to decrease water use. If dredging is a project component, consider timing of the project in order to minimize impacts to spawning fish and other aquatic species (include spawning seasons), and to reduce spread of exotic invasive species. We recommend early direct coordination with Project Evaluation Program for projects that could impact water resources, wetlands, streams, springs, and/or riparian habitats.

The Department recommends that wildlife surveys are conducted to determine if noise-sensitive species occur within the project area. Avoidance or minimization measures could include conducting project activities outside of breeding seasons.

Based on the project type entered, coordination with the Office of Surface Mining may be required (http://www.osmre.gov/index.shtm).

Based on the project type entered, coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency may be required (http://www.epa.gov/).

Based on the project type entered, coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html).

Pre- and post-survey/monitoring should be conducted to determine alternative access/exits to mines and to identify and/or minimize potential impacts to bat species. For further information when developing alternatives to mine closures, contact the Arizona Game and Fish Department Nongame Bat Coordinator at the Main Office in Terrestrial Branch, https://www.azgfd.com/agency/offices or (602) 942-3000.

Based on the project type entered, coordination with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality may be required (http://www.azdeq.gov/).

Based on the project type entered, coordination with Arizona Department of Water Resources may be required (http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/default.aspx).

Vegetation restoration projects (including treatments of invasive or exotic species) should have a completed site- evaluation plan (identifying environmental conditions necessary to re-establish native vegetation), a revegetation plan (species, density, method of establishment), a short and long-term monitoring plan, including adaptive management guidelines to address needs for replacement vegetation.

Avoid/minimize wildlife impacts related to contacting hazardous and other human-made substances in facility water collection/storage basins, evaporation or settling ponds and/or facility storage yards. Design slopes to discourage wading birds and use fencing, netting, hazing or other measures to exclude wildlife.

Project Location and/or Species Recommendations: HDMS records indicate that one or more native plants listed on the Arizona Native Plant Law and Antiquities Act have been documented within the vicinity of your project area. Please contact: Arizona Department of Agriculture 1688 W Adams St. Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602.542.4373 https://agriculture.az.gov/environmental-services/np1

Page 10 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_moss_be_29144_30011.pdf Project ID: HGIS-08192 Review Date: 10/18/2018 01:28:49 PM

HDMS records indicate that one or more listed, proposed, or candidate species or Critical Habitat (Designated or Proposed) have been documented in the vicinity of your project. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulatory authority over all federally listed species. Please contact USFWS Ecological Services Offices at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ or:

Phoenix Main Office Tucson Sub-Office Flagstaff Sub-Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd, Suite 103 201 N. Bonita Suite 141 SW Forest Science Complex Phoenix, AZ 85021 Tucson, AZ 85745 2500 S. Pine Knoll Dr. Phone: 602-242-0210 Phone: 520-670-6144 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Fax: 602-242-2513 Fax: 520-670-6155 Phone: 928-556-2157 Fax: 928-556-2121

HDMS records indicate that Western Burrowing Owls have been documented within the vicinity of your project area. Please review the western burrowing owl resource page at: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/speciesofgreatestconservneed/burrowingowlmanagement/.

HDMS records indicate that Sonoran Desert Tortoise have been documented within the vicinity of your project area. Please review the Tortoise Handling Guidelines found at: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/tortoise/

Analysis indicates that your project is located in the vicinity of an identified wildlife habitat linkage corridor. Project planning and implementation efforts should focus on maintaining adequate opportunities for wildlife permeability. For information pertaining to the linkage assessment and wildlife species that may be affected, please refer to: http://www.corridordesign.org/arizona. Please contact your local Arizona Game and Fish Department Regional Office for specific project recommendations: https://www.azgfd.com/Agency/Offices.

Page 11 of 11

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

APPENDIX E

HabiMap Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas Species

Appendix E HabiMap Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas Species

Quad Name Species Name Breeding Code BOUNDARY CONE Ash-throated Flycatcher Probable BOUNDARY CONE Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Probable BOUNDARY CONE Black-throated Sparrow Confirmed BOUNDARY CONE Burrowing Owl Possible BOUNDARY CONE Cactus Wren Possible BOUNDARY CONE Costa's Hummingbird Confirmed BOUNDARY CONE Horned Lark Probable BOUNDARY CONE House Finch Possible BOUNDARY CONE Lesser Nighthawk Possible BOUNDARY CONE Loggerhead Shrike Confirmed BOUNDARY CONE Lucy's Warbler Probable BOUNDARY CONE Mourning Dove Confirmed BOUNDARY CONE Red-tailed Hawk Possible BOUNDARY CONE Say's Phoebe Possible BOUNDARY CONE Verdin Confirmed DAVIS DAM American Kestrel Possible DAVIS DAM Anna's Hummingbird Possible DAVIS DAM Ash-throated Flycatcher Possible DAVIS DAM Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Possible DAVIS DAM Black-throated Sparrow Probable DAVIS DAM Brown-headed Cowbird Possible DAVIS DAM Cliff Swallow Possible DAVIS DAM Common Raven Confirmed DAVIS DAM Costa's Hummingbird Probable DAVIS DAM Curve-billed Thrasher Confirmed DAVIS DAM European Starling Confirmed DAVIS DAM Gambel's Quail Possible DAVIS DAM Greater Roadrunner Confirmed DAVIS DAM Great-tailed Grackle Confirmed DAVIS DAM Hooded Oriole Probable DAVIS DAM House Finch Confirmed DAVIS DAM House Sparrow Confirmed DAVIS DAM Inca Dove Possible DAVIS DAM Killdeer Probable DAVIS DAM Lesser Goldfinch Possible DAVIS DAM Loggerhead Shrike Possible DAVIS DAM Mourning Dove Possible DAVIS DAM Northern Rough-winged Swallow Confirmed DAVIS DAM Red-winged Blackbird Possible DAVIS DAM Rock Pigeon Possible

Appendix E Page 1 of 5 Appendix E HabiMap Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas Species

Quad Name Species Name Breeding Code DAVIS DAM Rock Wren Confirmed DAVIS DAM Say's Phoebe Confirmed DAVIS DAM Turkey Vulture Possible DAVIS DAM Verdin Possible DAVIS DAM Western Kingbird Confirmed DAVIS DAM White-winged Dove Possible DAVIS DAM SE American Kestrel Possible DAVIS DAM SE Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Confirmed DAVIS DAM SE Black-throated Sparrow Probable DAVIS DAM SE Cactus Wren Probable DAVIS DAM SE Common Raven Confirmed DAVIS DAM SE Gambel's Quail Possible DAVIS DAM SE Great Horned Owl Possible DAVIS DAM SE House Finch Possible DAVIS DAM SE Loggerhead Shrike Possible DAVIS DAM SE Mourning Dove Probable DAVIS DAM SE Northern Mockingbird Confirmed DAVIS DAM SE Red-tailed Hawk Possible DAVIS DAM SE Rock Pigeon Probable DAVIS DAM SE Rock Wren Confirmed DAVIS DAM SE Verdin Possible MOUNT NUTT American Kestrel Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Ash-throated Flycatcher Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Barn Owl Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Bell's Vireo Possible MOUNT NUTT Bewick's Wren Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Black-throated Sparrow Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Brown-headed Cowbird Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Cactus Wren Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Canyon Towhee Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Canyon Wren Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Common Poorwill Possible MOUNT NUTT Common Raven Probable MOUNT NUTT Cooper's Hawk Possible MOUNT NUTT Costa's Hummingbird Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Curve-billed Thrasher Confirmed MOUNT NUTT European Starling Possible MOUNT NUTT Gambel's Quail Confirmed

Appendix E Page 2 of 5 Appendix E HabiMap Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas Species

Quad Name Species Name Breeding Code MOUNT NUTT Gila Woodpecker Possible MOUNT NUTT Great Horned Owl Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Greater Roadrunner Possible MOUNT NUTT Hooded Oriole Confirmed MOUNT NUTT House Finch Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Lesser Goldfinch Probable MOUNT NUTT Loggerhead Shrike Probable MOUNT NUTT Lucy's Warbler Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Mourning Dove Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Northern Mockingbird Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Phainopepla Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Red-tailed Hawk Possible MOUNT NUTT Say's Phoebe Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Scott's Oriole Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Spotted Towhee Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Turkey Vulture Possible MOUNT NUTT Verdin Probable MOUNT NUTT Western Kingbird Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Western Meadowlark Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Western Scrub-jay Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Western Wood-pewee Confirmed MOUNT NUTT Yellow Warbler Possible OATMAN Ash-throated Flycatcher Confirmed OATMAN Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Probable OATMAN Black-throated Sparrow Confirmed OATMAN Brown-headed Cowbird Possible OATMAN Cactus Wren Probable OATMAN Costa's Hummingbird Confirmed OATMAN Curve-billed Thrasher Probable OATMAN European Starling Confirmed OATMAN Gambel's Quail Confirmed OATMAN Gilded Flicker Possible OATMAN Great Horned Owl Possible OATMAN Greater Roadrunner Possible OATMAN House Finch Confirmed OATMAN House Sparrow Confirmed OATMAN Loggerhead Shrike Probable OATMAN Mourning Dove Probable OATMAN Northern Mockingbird Confirmed OATMAN Phainopepla Probable

Appendix E Page 3 of 5 Appendix E HabiMap Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas Species

Quad Name Species Name Breeding Code OATMAN Say's Phoebe Possible OATMAN Turkey Vulture Possible OATMAN Verdin Confirmed SECRET PASS American Kestrel Possible SECRET PASS Ash-throated Flycatcher Probable SECRET PASS Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Possible SECRET PASS Black-throated Sparrow Probable SECRET PASS Cactus Wren Confirmed SECRET PASS Canyon Towhee Probable SECRET PASS Common Poorwill Possible SECRET PASS Common Raven Possible SECRET PASS Gambel's Quail Possible SECRET PASS Great Horned Owl Possible SECRET PASS House Finch Confirmed SECRET PASS House Sparrow Confirmed SECRET PASS Ladder-backed Woodpecker Possible SECRET PASS Loggerhead Shrike Confirmed SECRET PASS Mourning Dove Possible SECRET PASS Northern Mockingbird Confirmed SECRET PASS Phainopepla Confirmed SECRET PASS Prairie Falcon Probable SECRET PASS Red-tailed Hawk Possible SECRET PASS Say's Phoebe Probable SECRET PASS Turkey Vulture Possible SECRET PASS Verdin Confirmed SECRET PASS Western Meadowlark Probable UNION PASS Ash-throated Flycatcher Confirmed UNION PASS Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Confirmed UNION PASS Black-throated Sparrow Confirmed UNION PASS Cactus Wren Confirmed UNION PASS Canyon Towhee Confirmed UNION PASS Costa's Hummingbird Confirmed UNION PASS Curve-billed Thrasher Confirmed UNION PASS Gambel's Quail Confirmed UNION PASS Great Horned Owl Possible UNION PASS House Finch Confirmed UNION PASS Loggerhead Shrike Confirmed UNION PASS Mourning Dove Confirmed UNION PASS Northern Mockingbird Confirmed UNION PASS Phainopepla Confirmed

Appendix E Page 4 of 5 Appendix E HabiMap Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas Species

Quad Name Species Name Breeding Code UNION PASS Red-tailed Hawk Confirmed UNION PASS Rock Wren Confirmed UNION PASS Say's Phoebe Confirmed UNION PASS Verdin Confirmed UNION PASS Western Screech-owl Possible WARM SPRINGS Ash-throated Flycatcher Possible WARM SPRINGS Black-tailed Gnatcatcher Confirmed WARM SPRINGS Black-throated Sparrow Possible WARM SPRINGS Cactus Wren Confirmed WARM SPRINGS Canyon Towhee Probable WARM SPRINGS Canyon Wren Confirmed WARM SPRINGS Chukar Probable WARM SPRINGS Common Poorwill Possible WARM SPRINGS Costa's Hummingbird Probable WARM SPRINGS Curve-billed Thrasher Possible WARM SPRINGS Gambel's Quail Probable WARM SPRINGS House Finch Possible WARM SPRINGS Ladder-backed Woodpecker Possible WARM SPRINGS Mourning Dove Confirmed WARM SPRINGS Northern Mockingbird Possible WARM SPRINGS Phainopepla Confirmed WARM SPRINGS Rock Wren Probable WARM SPRINGS Turkey Vulture Possible WARM SPRINGS Verdin Confirmed WARM SPRINGS Western Screech-owl Possible

Appendix E Page 5 of 5

APPENDIX F

Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status AMPHIBIANS (3) Arizona toad Sensitive Inhabits rocky, shallow perennial Below 8,000 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: south-central and Throughout the central portion of None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Anaxyrus microscaphus) streams in a range of elevations 2013a). southwestern Utah, southern Nevada, the state below the Mogollon Rim contain appropriate habitat and is expected to occur within the Analysis and habitats from low desert to Arizona and New Mexico. In Mexico: (AGFD 2013a). Occurs along the outside the species’ range. Area. mountains. Also uses human Sonora, Chihuahua and Durango Virgin, Bill Williams, Hassayampa, altered landscapes including golf (AGFD 2013a, BISON-M 2018a). Agua Fria, Verde, Salt, San Francisco, course ponds and agricultural Blue and Little Colorado River fields (Nigro and Rorabaugh drainages. Additionally found along 2008). Eagle and Bonita creeks (Nigro and Rorabaugh 2008). This species has been recorded from Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo and Yavapai counties (AGFD 2013a). Relict leopard frog Sensitive Inhabits ponds, wetlands, In Arizona, 680–1,900 ft southeastern Nevada and northwestern Found in extreme northwestern None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Lithobates onca) springs, rivers and streams in (AGFD 2003c). Arizona (AGFD 2003c). portions of the state along the Virgin contain appropriate habitat and is expected to occur within the Analysis Mohave Desertscrub (Brennan River drainage near Littlefield outside the range of the species. Area. and Holycross 2006). (AGFD 2003c, Brennan and Holycross 2006). Lowland leopard frog Sensitive Occurs in a variety of perennial In Arizona, from 480– In the U.S.: Arizona and New Mexico. Found in central and southeastern None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Lithobates yavapaiensis) to near perennial waters in desert 6,200 ft (AGFD 2006) In Mexico: Sonora and Chihuahua Arizona with the majority of known contain appropriate habitat and is expected to occur within the Analysis grasslands to pinyon juniper (AGFD 2006). localities found in Gila, Maricopa, outside the range of the species. Area. biotic communities. Require and Yavapai counties (AGFD 2006) perennial to semi-permanent water systems (e.g., perennial streams, rivers, livestock drinkers, earthen stock tanks, etc.). Populations are concentrated near deep pools and springs. Forages on arthropods and invertebrates as adults, and consumes algae, plant tissue, and minute water organisms as larvae (AGFD 2006).

Appendix F Page 1 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status BIRDS (5) Northern goshawk Sensitive Breeds in old growth forests In Arizona, 4,750–9,120 Breeding Range In the U.S.: breeds Breeds throughout the state in None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) consisting of a variety of forest ft (AGFD 2013c). throughout the country wherever forested mountains and plateaus, contain appropriate habitat. expected to occur within the Analysis types (deciduous, coniferous, habitat exists, except in areas occupied often about 6,000 ft. One of the Area. mixed forest). In Arizona, most by A. g. laingi (insular and coastal highest breeding densities known is commonly found nesting in pine Alaska). Outside of the USA: on the Kaibab Plateau (AGFD forests along the Mogollon Rim throughout North America, except in 2013c). and Kaibab Plateau, and in areas occupied by A. g. laingi (insular Arizona pine and ponderosa pine British Columbia, Canada), and south to in southeastern Arizona Jalisco, Mexico. Wintering Range As the mountain ranges. Although breeding range and irregularly south uncommon, they have been (Squires and Reynolds 1997). known to breed in lower elevation oak forests in southeastern Arizona. Wintering habitat is poorly understood. Forages on a variety of prey types (birds, small mammals, etc.) that are spotted from perches (AGFD 2013c). Ferruginous hawk Sensitive Inhabits open, flat grassland In Arizona, 3,500–6,000 Breeding Range In Canada: Found year-round in with areas of Unlikely. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Buteo regalis) associations with nearby knolls ft (AGFD 2013d). southeastern Alberta, southern native grasslands or agricultural fields contain grassland, sagebrush desert, or expected to occur within the Analysis with scattered junipers. Saskatchewan and extreme (AGFD 2013d) and breeds in the pine-juniper woodland, but the species Area. Transient individuals are possible Sometimes found in sagebrush southwestern Manitoba. In the U.S.: northern portion of the state has occasionally been sighted near but are not expected to occupy the area deserts and pine-juniper North and South Dakota, western (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). Bullhead City (eBird 2019)1. Within the due to the lack of appropriate habitat. woodlands in its breeding range Nebraska, extreme western Kansas, Oatman quadrangle, there has been no (Corman and Wise-Gervais Oklahoma and Texas panhandles, reported breeding activity, no HDMS 2005). northeastern New Mexico, Arizona, records nor is the species is not Nevada, eastern Oregon, central and predicted to occur (AGFD 2019, eBird southeastern Washington, southern 2019)2. Although there are no HDMS Idaho, eastern Montana, Wyoming, records in any of the surrounding Utah and Colorado. Wintering Range In quadrangles, this species is predicted to the U.S.: California, southern Nevada, occur in agricultural areas of Davis Utah, extreme southern Wyoming, Dam SE and Needles NE southwestern Nebraska, western and quadrangles(AGFD 2019) and there are central Kansas, central Oklahoma, isolated eBird (eBird 2019) reports Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. In along the nearby reaches of the Mexico: Baja California , northern Colorado River. Sonora, Durango, Chihuahua and Coahuila (Ng et al. 2017). Pinyon jay Sensitive and Bird Inhabits pinyon pine, conifer and In Arizona, 4,600–7,800 Resident: (but move outside typical Central and northern Arizona, where None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) of Conservation grasslands with scattered stands ft (Corman and Wise- range when pinecone crop fails): central it parallels the distribution of contain suitable habitat, nor does it expected to occur within the Analysis Concern of juniper. It is often found in Gervais 2005). Oregon, isolated populations in eastern Colorado pinyon pine (Corman and border suitable habitat. Area. bordering habitats as it wanders and southern California, Nevada, Utah, Wise-Gervais 2005). widely to forage (Corman and southeastern Idaho, northern Arizona, Wise-Gervais 2005). southern Montana, western and central Wyoming, western South Dakota, northwestern Nebraska, western and southern Colorado, extreme western Oklahoma and New Mexico (Balda 2002).

1 Accessed March 19, 2019. 2 Accessed April 16, 2019.

Appendix F Page 2 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status California black rail Sensitive and Bird Inhabits wetlands with shallow, Below 475 ft (AGFD Resident: In the U.S.: isolated Restricted to suitable habitat along None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Laterallus jamaicensis of Conservation stable water and gently sloping 2002a). populations in California and Arizona the Colorado River and Bill Williams contain suitable habitat. expected to occur within the Analysis coturniculus) Concern shorelines along the Colorado In Mexico: northwestern Baja River Delta (AGFD 2002a). Area. River (Corman and Wise-Gervais California3 (AGFD 2002a, Eddleman, 2005). Flores, and Legare 1994, NatureServe 2019). Desert purple martin Sensitive In Arizona, found in Sonoran Desert birds found At the full species level, P. subis breeds Breeds where suitable habitat exists in None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Progne subis hesperia) Desertscrub where large between 1,800–4,060 ft throughout the eastern US, Utah, southern Arizona, primarily east of contain suitable habitat and is outside of expected to occur within the Analysis saguaros with many cavities are (Corman and Wise- Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, the Baboquivari Mountains and south the known range. Area. abundant or in higher elevation Gervais 2005). and the coastal regions of northern of the Boyce Thompson Arboretum woodlands including pure stands California, Oregon, Washington and in Pinal County (Corman and Wise- of ponderosa pine, as well as southern British Columbia. Breeding Gervais 2005). those with a Gambel's oak, Range In the U.S.: southern Arizona Madrean evergreen oak, or and southwestern New Mexico. In pinyon pine-juniper component, Mexico: Baja California, Baja California and less frequently in mixed Sur, south-central Sonora, and possibly conifer forests. Forages over extreme northern Sinaloa. Wintering rivers, lakes, ponds, and earthen Range Unknown but P. subis winters in stock tanks, often at considerable South America east of the Andes south distances from nest sites northern Argentina and southern Brazil (Corman and Wise-Gervais (Brown and Tarof 2013). 2005). Note: montane birds in Arizona have typically been attributed to P. s. subis whereas birds which occur in the desert are attributed to P. s. hesperia (Brown and Tarof 2013). FISH (5) Longfin dace Sensitive Inhabits a variety of aquatic Usually below 4,900 ft In the U.S.: Arizona and New Mexico. Primarily in the Gila and Bill Williams None. There are no permanent streams No impact. The species is not (Agosia chrysogaster) habitats from low-elevation but occasionally up In Mexico: northern Sonora (AGFD River basins. Introduced, but not within the Analysis Area. expected to occur within the Analysis sandy bottomed desert streams 6,700 ft (AGFD 2013b, 2013b, BISON-M 2018b)4. In the U.S.: considered established, into the Area. to cool, clear mountain streams. e). southeastern Arizona. In Mexico: Virgin River basin (AGFD 2013b). This species is tolerant of high northern Sonora (AGFD 2013e). Found in the Yaqui River (San water temperatures and low Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge dissolved oxygen. Note: This (NWR), Leslie creek in Leslie Canyon species has two forms in NWR, the Willcox Playa and Arizona: the Rio Yaqui form (A. tributaries including Turkey Creek c. sp. 1) and the Gila River form and Rucker Creek (AGFD 2013e). (A. c. chrysogaster) (AGFD 2013b, e). Desert sucker Sensitive Inhabits rapids and flowing 480–8,840 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: Arizona, New Mexico, Found in the lower Colorado River, None. There are no rivers within the No impact. The species is not (Catostomus clarkii) pools of rivers and streams with 2002c). Nevada and Utah. In Mexico: Sonora and in the Bill Williams, Salt, Gila, Analysis Area. expected to occur within the Analysis gravelly bottoms with some silt (NatureServe 2019)5. and San Francisco River drainages Area. (AGFD 2002c). (AGFD 2002c).

3 Possibly expatriated. NatureServe 2019, accessed January 3, 2019. 4 Accessed January 4, 2019. 5 Accessed January 4, 2019.

Appendix F Page 3 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Sonora sucker Sensitive Prefers deep, quiet waters with 1,210–8,730 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: Arizona and New Mexico. Found in the Gila and Bill Williams None. There are no permanent streams No impact. The species is not (Catostomus insignis) gravelly or rocky bottoms. 2002b). In Mexico: northern Sonora (AGFD systems. Rare to absent in the Salt within the Analysis Area. expected to occur within the Analysis Adults remain under cover 2002b). River (AGFD 2002b, NatureServe Area. during the day and move to runs 2019)6. There is a HDMS record of and riffles at night. Young occur this species within 5 miles of the in runs and quiet eddies Analysis Area. throughout the day and night. Adults feed on macroinvertebrates and algae, while the young feed on tiny protozoans, crustaceans, and various plant groups (AGFD 2002b). Roundtail chub Proposed Inhabits cool to warm water 1,210–7,220 ft, most Historically from The Bill Williams, Occurs in two tributaries to the Little None. There are no permanent streams No impact. The species is not (Gila robusta) Threatened, lower streams and rivers (USFWS common 2,000–5,000 ft Gila, Little Colorado, Salt and Verde Colorado River, eight tributaries of within the Analysis Area. expected to occur within the Analysis Colorado River 2015). This species typically (Minckley and Marsh river drainages in Arizona and New the Bill Williams River, the main stem Area. DPS (USFWS inhabits the largest and deepest 2009) Mexico. At the full species level: In the of the Salt River and four of its 2015); withdrawn pools of middle to large streams U.S.: the Colorado River basin in tributaries, the main stem of the because the and is considered to be less Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah Verde River and five tributaries, proposed DPS associated with dense cover than and Wyoming (USFWS 2015). In Aravaipa Creek and Eagle Creek was not a distinct other chub species (AGFD 2015, Mexico: Rio Yaqui and Piaxtla in (AGFD 2015). This distribution taxonomic entity Minckley and Marsh 2009, p. Sonora (AGFD 2015). This distribution reflects USFWS description of the (USFWS 2017)7, 208). Young-of-the-year favor reflects USFWS description of the proposed DPS and not the current Sensitive slow, shallow water associated proposed DPS and not the current understanding of the species with vegetated shorelines understanding of the species complex. complex. (USFWS 2015). Speckled dace Sensitive Inhabits rocky riffles, runs, and In Arizona 1,550–8,920 In Canada: southern British Columbia. Found in Bill Williams, Colorado, None. There are no permanent streams No impact. The species is not (Rhinichthys osculus) pools of headwaters and small to ft, most common 2,000– In the U.S.: Arizona, California, Salt, Verde, and Upper Gila River within the Analysis Area. expected to occur within the Analysis medium rivers (AGFD 2002d). 3,000 ft (AGFD 2002d). Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, drainages (AGFD 2002d). Area. Note: R. osculus is composed of Oregon, Utah, Washington, and several morphologically and Wyoming. In Mexico: Sonora ecologically diverse populations (NatureServe 2019)9. and probably represents a species complex (NatureServe 2019)8. INVERTEBRATES (1) Kingman springsnail Sensitive Inhabits spring systems and 2,640–3,600 ft (AGFD Arizona endemic (AGFD 2003b). Known only from Burns, Dripping, None. Although there is a record of the No impact. The species is not (Pyrgulopsis conica) immediate vicinity of moist or 2003b). and Cool Springs in the Black species within 5 miles of the Analysis expected to occur within the Analysis wet environments (AGFD Mountains of Mohave County Area, the Analysis Area does not Area. 2003b). (AGFD 2003b). There is a record of contain appropriate habitat for the the species within 5 miles of the species. Analysis Area MAMMALS (4) Gunnison’s prairie dog Sensitive Inhabits gently sloping 6,000–12,000 ft Central Colorado, northern Arizona, Occurs in northern Arizona (USFWS None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Cynomys gunnisoni) grasslands, shrub-steppe (NatureServe 2019)10 southeastern Utah, northwestern New 2013). the geographic range of the species and expected to occur within the Analysis intermountain valleys, and Mexico (USFWS 2013). lacks appropriate habitat. Area. semidesert and montane shrublands (USFWS 2013).

6 Accessed March 19, 2019. 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that Gila nigra and G. intermedia should be subsumed into G. robusta. 8 Accessed January 4, 2019. 9 Accessed January 4, 2019. 10 Accessed January 4, 2019.

Appendix F Page 4 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Spotted bat Sensitive Found in a wide range of habitat In Arizona, 110–8,670 ft In Canada: southern British Columbia. Has been recorded from Fort Pierce Unlikely. The Analysis Area is within May impact individuals but is not (Euderma maculatum) types including desertscrub, (AGFD 2003d). In the U.S.: central and eastern Wash near the Utah-Arizona border, known geographic range and may likely to result in a trend toward pinyon-juniper woodlands, Washington, Idaho, south-central the Kaibab Plateau, near Littlefield, contain appropriate roosting habitat, listing or loss of viability. ponderosa pine forests, mixed Montana, eastern Oregon, western Marble Canyon, near Maricopa but lacks water sources favored for conifer forest, canyon bottoms, Wyoming, western Colorado, western Junction, near Roll, southeast of foraging. Although the species is There are no known roost sites in the riparian areas, fields, pastures and southern Nevada, California, Seligman, near Tempe, near Yuma predicted to occur throughout the Analysis Area. If present in the area, a and sub-alpine meadows. Roost Arizona, western and central New and has been detected acoustically in Oatman quadrangle, there are no limited number of foraging individuals in cracks and crevices of rock Mexico, and western Texas. In Mexico: eastern Arizona (AGFD 2003d). HDMS records within 5 miles of the may be impacted. Because bats forage cliffs and in caves. They are from adjacent populations in the US Analysis Area or from the surrounding widely on the landscape, any individuals generally solitary, but may roost south to Durango and Queretaro quadrangles (AGFD 2019), and records could readily use nearby areas for or hibernate in small groups. (AGFD 2003d, NatureServe 2019)11. in the state are relatively rare. foraging to avoid disturbance associated Foraging ranges may be large with the Project. A maximum of five and up to 25 miles from their drill rigs will be operational at any one roost sites. Primarily consume time, and the total habitat disturbance moths. This species is rarely associated the mine expansion and caught in nets, potentially due to exploration program is small compared rarity, high flight patterns or to the species’ range. Thus, impacts of sensitivity to light and sound. In the Project to individuals will not affect Arizona, this species is most the species as a whole. commonly captured near water or along canyon rims. It is unknown if this species is migratory. In Arizona, they appear active year-round (Luce, Chambers and Herder 2005). Hualapai Mexican Vole Sensitive There is conflicting information 3,080–8,400 ft (AGFD Arizona endemic (AGFD 2003a). At Occurs in Mohave, Coconino, and None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) about the narrowness of habitat 2003a). the full species level M. mexicanus patchy Yavapai counties. Within Mohave the geographic range of the species and expected to occur within the Analysis [Note: U.S. Fish and Wildlife requirements for this species. populations occur from extreme County, this species occurs in the lacks appropriate habitat. Area. Service (2017) no longer AGFD (2003a) suggests that the southern Utah and Colorado south Hualapai and Music mountains, recognizes M. m. hualpaiensis as species typically occurs in dry through central Arizona and New Grand Wash Cliffs, in the vicinity of a valid subspecies] grass and forb habitats in Mexico, through the interior of north Wabayuma Peak and upper Blue Ponderosa Pine dominated and central Mexico in the Sierra Madre Tank Wash (AGFD 2003a). USFWS forest but can also use grassy to central Oaxaca (Álvarez-Castañeda (2017) considered the range to be areas in spruce-fir, Gambel's oak and Reid 2016).] restricted to the Hualapai Mountains. or pinyon-juniper woodlands or sagebrush communities. In contrast, USFWS (1991) stated that at the time of the Recovery Plan, the species was associated with grass-sedge areas along permanent or semi-permanent water from springs or seeps. Arizona myotis Sensitive Forages over or near water, 150–8,620 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: southern California, Generally, occurs at higher elevations None. The Analysis Area lacks No impact. The species is not (Myotis occultus) mostly in ponderosa pine and 2011). Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and primarily south of Mogollon Rim appropriate foraging and roosting expected to occur within the Analysis oak-pine woodlands, although possibly southern Utah and western (Hoffmeister 1986) and found along habitat. Area. known from lower elevations Texas. In Mexico: very poorly known the Colorado River near water along the Colorado River. but records from Chihuahua and (AGFD 2011). Typically roost in tree snags and Mexico. D.F. (AGFD 2011, crevices (Hoffmeister 1986). NatureServe 2019)12.

11 Accessed January 4, 2019. 12 Accessed January 4, 2019.

Appendix F Page 5 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status PLANTS (13) Pima Indian mallow Sensitive Occurs on steep rocky slopes 1,700–4,900 ft (Arizona In the U.S.: Arizona. In Mexico: Sonora Found in mountain ranges of central None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Abutilon parishii) and hillsides in moist soils and Rare Plant Committee (AGFD 2000). and southeastern Arizona including in the geographic range of the species. expected to occur within the Analysis full sun within higher-elevation 2001). Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Santa Cruz Area. Sonoran Desertscrub, and and Yavapai counties. Specifically, the semidesert grassland. In riparian species has been found in the areas, it occurs on flat terraces Superstition, Santa Catalina, Rincon, above canyon bottoms (AGFD Silverbell, Tucson, Picacho, Tortolita, 2000, Arizona Rare Plant Dripping Springs, Santa Rita and Committee 2001). Tumacacori mountains as well as Mineral Hills, Little Shipp Wash, and Cottonwood Creek (AGFD 2000). Parish wild onion Sensitive Inhabits open, rocky and sandy 2,720–4,590 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: southeastern California and Known from the Kofa Mountains in None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Allium parishii) slopes in the Mohave Desert in 2005b). western Arizona (AGFD2005b, SEINet Yuma and La Paz counties and the the known geographical and elevational expected to occur within the Analysis the Joshua tree woodland 2019)13. Mohave Mountains in Mohave range. Area. community (AGFD 2005b). County (AGFD 2005b, SEINet 2019)14. Aquarius milkvetch Sensitive Inhabits late Tertiary deposits of 2,000–2,600 ft (AGFD Arizona endemic (AGFD Arizona Known only from Burro Creek in the None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Astragalus newberryi var. aquarii) limestone and tuff with other 2004a). Game and Fish Department 2004a, western portion of the state (Arizona the known geographical range and does expected to occur within the Analysis rare plants of Sonoran Desert 2001). Game and Fish Department 2004a, not contain appropriate substrates. Area. (Arizona Rare Plant Committee Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001, 2001). SEINet 2019)15. Kofa mountain barberry Sensitive Found in shady portions of 2,200–3,500 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: Arizona and southeastern Found in the Kofa, Sand Tank, None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Berberis harrisoniana) rocky canyons the Sonoran 2004c, Arizona Rare California (AGFD 2004c, SEINet Eagletail and at the north end of the the known geographical range. expected to occur within the Analysis Desert chaparral community Plant Committee 2001). 2019)16. Ajo Mountains in southwestern Area. (AGFD 2004c, Arizona Rare Arizona (AGFD 2004c, Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001). Plant Committee 2001). Silverleaf sunray Sensitive Inhabits dry, slopes and sandy 705–3,400 ft (AGFD northern Arizona and southern Nevada Occurs in the northern portion of the None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Enceliopsis argophylla) washes on clay, limestone and 2005c). (AGFD 2005c, SEINet 2019)17. state in Mohave County including in the geographic range of the species. expected to occur within the Analysis gypsum cliffs, volcanic gravels, the vicinity of Lake Mead, the Area. and loose sands in creosote- Grapevine Mesa area, below the bursage vegetation (AGFD Hurricane Cliffs, south of the Hoover 2005c). Dam, the Boulder Dam area, the Gypsum Hills area, and east of Littlefield. Additionally found near Navajo Bridge in Coconino County (AGFD 2005c). California flannelbush Sensitive Inhabits well-drained rocky In Arizona, 3,500–6,500 In the U.S.: California, and central Known from Superstition, Mazatzal, None. The Analysis Area is below the No impact. The species is not expected (Fremontodendron californicum) hillsides and ridges, usually on ft (AGFD 2005a). Arizona. In Mexico: Baja California, Weaver, and Aquarius mountains, elevation range of the species and does to occur within the Analysis Area. the north aspect, in chaparral Baja California Sur (AGFD 2005a, and upper Verde Valley, Arizona not contain appropriate habitat. and oak-pine woodlands (AGFD SEINet 2019)18. (AGFD 2005a). Also known from the 2005a). tributaries of upper Queen Creek (SEINet 2019).

13 Accessed January 4, 2019. 14 Accessed January 4, 2019. 15 Accessed January 4, 2019. 16 Accessed January 4, 2019. 17 Accessed January 4, 2019. 18 Accessed January 4, 2019.

Appendix F Page 6 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status White-margined penstemon Sensitive Inhabits sandy loam uplands and 1,900–3,100 ft (Arizona western Arizona, southern California Scattered over a plain that extends Unlikely. The Analysis Area contains May impact individuals but is not (Penstemon albomarginatus) sandy washes in Mohave Rare Plant Committee and extreme southern Nevada westward from the Hualapai potentially suitable habitat but is outside likely to result in a trend toward Desertscrub (Arizona Rare Plant 2001). (Anderson 2001, Arizona Rare Plant Mountains, covering an area of of the known geographic range in listing or loss of viability. Committee 2001). This species is Committee 2001). approximately 75 square miles Arizona. The species is rare in all parts a perennial, but above ground between Yucca and Dutch Flat of its range, with the majority of Surface disturbance associated with the portions of the plant are only (Arizona Rare Plant Committee apparently suitable habitat being project is limited and there are no visible during the spring growing 2001), within and near the white- unoccupied. known individuals of this species in the season (Anderson 2001). margined Penstemon ACEC Analysis Area. Effects of the Project Flowering and fruiting occurs (Anderson 2001). could not result in changes in the between late March and early current status of the species because June (Arizona Rare Plant any individuals that would be impacted Committee 2001). would constitute newly discovered populations in the Analysis Area.

Parish phacelia Sensitive Inhabits edges of dry lake beds 2300–2,800 ft (Arizona northwestern Arizona, southern Known only from Hualapai Valley None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Phacelia parishii) in semi-desert grassland and Rare Plant Committee California and southern Nevada and Burro Creek in Mohave County contain appropriate habitat and is expected to occur within the Analysis Mohave Desert vegetation, and 2001). (NatureServe 2019)19. (Arizona Rare Plant Committee outside of the known geographic range Area. gypsum lakebed deposits in 2001). in Arizona. Sonoran Desert vegetation (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001). Scaly sand food Sensitive Inhabits sandy soils, edges of 325–900 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: western Arizona and Known from La Paz County, east and None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Pholisma arenarium) washes, and sand dunes. It is a 1999b, Arizona Rare southern California. In Mexico: Baja southeast of Parker (Arizona Rare the geographic and elevational range. expected to occur within the Analysis root parasite of desert shrubs Plant Committee 2001). California (SEINet 2019)20. Plant Committee 2001) and near Area. (Arizona Rare Plant Committee Yuma (SEINet 2019). 2001). Sand food Sensitive Inhabits sandy soils, sand dunes below 1,345 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: southern California and Known only from southwestern None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Pholisma sonorae) and other sandy areas. It is a root 2004d) southwestern Arizona. In Mexico: Baja Yuma County (Arizona Rare Plant the geographic and elevational range. expected to occur within the Analysis parasite of desert shrubs California and northwestern Sonora Committee 2001). Area. (Arizona Rare Plant Committee (AGFD 2004d) 2001). Kearney sumac Sensitive Inhabits north-facing dry cliffs in 1,000–1,500 ft (Arizona In the U.S.: southwestern Arizona. In Known only from southern Yuma None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Rhus kearneyi ssp. kearneyi) desertscrub (Arizona Rare Plant Rare Plant Committee Mexico: Baja California, northern Baja County (Arizona Rare Plant the geographic and elevational range. expected to occur within the Analysis Committee 2001). 2001). California Sur and northwestern Sonora Committee 2001). Area. (SEINet 2019)21. Aravaipa woodfern Sensitive Occurs in in moist soils in mesic 2,220–4,500 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: Arizona, southwestern Disjunct populations in Coconino, None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Thelypteris puberula var. canyons, along riverbanks, and 2004b) but SEINet California. In Mexico: Baja California, Gila, Mojave, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal contain appropriate habitat and is expected to occur within the Analysis sonorensis) meadow habitats in shade and Portal Network (2019)22 Baja California Sur, Sonora and and Yavapai counties (Arizona Game outside the known geographic range. Area. often associated with boulders shows an occurrence at Chihuahua (AGFD 2004b, SEINet and Fish Department 2004b, SEINet (AGFD 2004b). 7,000 ft. 2019)23. 2019)24.

19 Accessed March 22, 2019. 20 Accessed January 4, 2019. 21 Accessed March 22, 2019. 22 Accessed January 7, 2019. 23 Accessed January 7, 2019. 24 Accessed January 7, 2019.

Appendix F Page 7 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

BLM Species Habitat Elevational Range Total Range Distribution in Arizona Potential to Occur Impact Determination Status Blue sand lily Sensitive Inhabits sandy desert flats and Below 1,660 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: southwestern Arizona. In Occurs in southern Yuma County None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Triteleiopsis palmeri) low sand dunes and sandy soils. 1999a, Arizona Rare Mexico: Baja California, Baja California and far western Pima County contain appropriate habitat and is expected to occur within the Analysis Flowers primarily in response to Plant Committee 2001). Sur, and northwestern Sonora (AGFD (Arizona Rare Plant Committee outside of the known geographic range. Area. rain (only leaves are present in 1999a, SEINet 2019)25. 2001). dry years) and may go several years between blooms (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001). Reproduces vegetatively (AGFD 1999a). REPTILES (4) Sonora mud turtle Sensitive Inhabits springs, creeks, ponds, Below 6,700 ft (AGFD In the U.S.: Arizona, and New Mexico. Found in Gila River drainage of None. The Analysis Area does not No impact. The species is not (Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense) and waterholes of intermittent 1999c). In Mexico: Sonora (AGFD 1999c). central and southeast Arizona and contain aquatic habitats and is outside expected to occur within the Analysis streams in upland biotic tributaries of the Colorado River in of the known geographic range. Area. communities ranging from west-central Arizona (Brennan and Sonoran Desertscrub to Holycross 2006). Montane Ponderosa Pine Forests. May occur away from water during movements among aquatic features (Brennan and Holycross 2006). Flat-tailed horned lizard Sensitive Endemic to the Salton Trough Below 850 ft (Brennan In the U.S.: extreme southwestern Extreme southwestern Yuma County None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Phrynosoma mcallii) and inhabits hard packed sandy and Holycross 2006). Arizona, and southeastern California. In near the city of Yuma (Brennan and the species geographic range and does expected to occur within the Analysis flats and low dunes in Lower Mexico: northeastern Baja California, Holycross 2006, USFWS 2011). not contain appropriate habitat. Area. Colorado River desertscrub and northwestern Sonora (USFWS community, particularly 2011). creosote-white bursage vegetation (Brennan and Holycross 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Yuman desert fringe-toed Sensitive Inhabits dunes and sandy flats in In Arizona, below 700 ft In the U.S.: extreme southwestern Extreme southwestern Yuma County None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not lizard Lower Colorado River (Brennan and Holycross Arizona. In Mexico: extreme near the city of Yuma (Brennan and the species geographic range and does expected to occur within the Analysis (Uma rufopunctata)26 desertscrub (Brennan and 2006). northwestern Sonora (Gottscho et al. Holycross 2006, Gottscho et al. not contain appropriate habitat. Area. Holycross 2006). 2017). 2017). Mojave fringe-toed lizard Sensitive Inhabits dunes and sandy flats in In Arizona, 300–2,500 ft In the U.S.: extreme west-central Known from La Paz County None. The Analysis Area is outside of No impact. The species is not (Uma scoparia) Lower Colorado River (Brennan and Holycross Arizona and southeastern California (Brennan and Holycross 2006). the species geographic range and does expected to occur within the Analysis desertscrub (Brennan and 2006). (Gottscho et al. 2017). not contain appropriate habitat. Area. Holycross 2006).

25 Accessed January 7, 2019. 26 This species might represent a hybrid population of U. notata x cowlesi (Gottscho et al. 2017).

Appendix F Page 8 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

APPENDIX F REFERENCES

Álvarez-Castañeda, S.T., and F. Reid. 2016. Microtus mexicanus (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016. e.T13443A115113184.

Anderson, J. L. 2001. "The white-margined penstemon (Penstemon albomarginatus Jones), a rare Mohave Desert species, and the Hualapai Mountains land exchange in Mohave County, Arizona." In Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Third Conference, September 25-28, 2000, edited by Joyce Maschinski and Louella Holter. Flagstaff, Arizona: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 23 27-37.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1999a. Blue Sand Lily (Triteleiopsis palmeri). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. July 18, 1999. 4 pp.

______. 1999b. Scaly sandplant (Pholisma arenarium). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. June 6, 1999. 3 pp.

______. 1999c. Sonora Mud Turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. December 20, 1999. 3 pp.

______. 2000. Pima Indian Mallow (Abutilon parishii). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. March 23, 2000. 6 pp.

______. 2002a. California Black Rail (Laterallis jamaicensis coturniculus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. August 28, 2002. 6 pp.

______. 2002b. Sonora Sucker (Catostomus insignis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. December 4, 2002. 5 pp.

______. 2002c. Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope (Antilocapra americana sonoriensi). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 8.

______. 2002d. Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. December 4, 2002. 5 pp.

______. 2003a. Hualapai Mexican Vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis). Unpublished Abstract Compiled and Edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish. December 30, 2003. 8 pp.

Appendix F Page 9 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

______. 2003b. Kingman Sprinsnail (Pyrgulopsis conica). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 4 pp.

______. 2003c. Relict leopard frog (Lithobates onca). Unpublished Abstract Compiled and Edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. April 24, 2003. 6 pp.

______. 2003d. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. January 19, 2003. 9 pp.

______. 2004a. Aquarius milkvetch (Astragalus newberryi var. aquarii). Unpublished Abstract Compiled and Edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. August 20, 2004. 4 pp.

______. 2004b. Aravaipa Woodfern (Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. March 4, 2004. 4 pp.

______. 2004c. Kofa Mountain Barberry (Berberis harrisoniana). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. September 20, 2004. 4 pp.

______. 2004d. Sandfood (Pholisma sonorae). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. February 5, 2004. 3 pp.

______. 2005a. California Flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum). Draft Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. May 13, 2005. 6 pp.

______. 2005b. Parish Wild Onion (Allium parishii). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. September 8, 2005. 5 pp.

______. 2005c. Silverleaf sunray (Enceliopsis argophylla). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. April 28, 2005. 4 pp.

______. 2006. Lowland Leopard Frog (Lithobates yavapaiensis). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. October 26, 2006. 10 pp.

______. 2011. Arizona Myotis (Myotis occultus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. January 20, 2011. 7 pp.

Appendix F Page 10 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

______. 2013a. Arizona Toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. November 8, 2013. 5 pp.

______. 2013b. Gila Longfin Dace (Agosia chrysogaster chrysogaster). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. November 14, 2013. 7 pp.

______. 2013c. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Draft. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. November 14, 2013. 8 pp.

______. 2013d. Redbacked Whiptail (Aspidoscelis xanthonota) Draft. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. November 12, 2013. 4 pp.

______. 2013e. Yaqui Longfin Dace (Agosia chrysogaster sp. 1). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. November 14, 2013. 6 pp.

______. 2015. Bylas Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis arizonae). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department. August 10, 2015. 5 pp.

______. 2019. "HabiMapTM Arizona [online]." Arizona Game and Fish Department. http://habimap.org/.

Arizona Rare Plant Committee. 2001. Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide: A Collaboration of Agencies and Organizations. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Balda, Russell P. 2002. "Pinyon Jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America [online], edited by A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

BISON-M. 2018a. Arizona Toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus). Biotic Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M). Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

______. 2018b. Longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster). Biotic Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M). Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2006. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Brown, C. R., and S. Tarof. 2013. "Purple Martin (Progne subis), version 2.0." In Birds of North America [online], edited by A. F. Poole. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Corman, Troy, and Cathryn Wise-Gervais. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Appendix F Page 11 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area eBird. 2019. eBird: An Online Database of Bird Distribution and Abundance. eBird website. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Eddleman, W. R., R. E. Flores, and M. Legare. 1994. "Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America [online], edited by A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Gottscho, Andrew D., Dustin A. Wood, Amy G. Vandergast, Julio Lemos-Espinal, John Gatesy, and Tod W. Reeder. 2017. "Lineage Diversification of Fringe-Toed Lizards (Phrynosomatidae: Uma notata complex) in the Colorado Desert: Delimiting Species in the Presence of Gene Flow." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 106:103-117.

Hoffmeister, Donald F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona: The University of Arizona Press and The Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Luce, B., C. Chambers, and M. Herder. 2005. "Western Bat Species Euderma maculatum (Spotted Bat)." Western Bat Working Group. http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/

Minckley, W. L., and P.C. Marsh. 2009. Inland Fishes of the Greater Southwest - Chronicle of a Vanishing Biota. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

NatureServe. 2019. "NatureServe Explorer: an Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. Version 7.1." NatureServe. http://explorer.natureserve.org. Arlington, Virginia

Ng, J., M. D. Giovanni, M. J. Bechard, J. K. Schmutz, and P. Pyle. 2017. "Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America, edited by P. G. Rodewald. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Nigro, Ernest, and Jim Rorabaugh. 2008. "Arizona Toad Anaxyrus microscaphus." Online Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Arizona. T.C. Brennan. http://www.reptilesofaz.org/Turtle-Amphibs-Subpages/h-a-microscaphus.html.

SEINet Portal Network. 2019. http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php. SEINet Portal Network.

Squires, John R., and Richard T. Reynolds. 1997. "Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), version 2.0." In The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Hualapai Mexican Vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Fish and Wildlife Service. 28 pp.

______. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard as Threatened. Federal Register, 76:14210-14268.

______. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the Gunnison's prairie dog as an endangered or threated species. Federal Register, 78:68660- 68685.

Appendix F Page 12 of 13 APPENDIX F Special Status Species that are Unlikely or Have No Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area

______. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Headwater Chub and a Distinct Population Segment of the Roundtail Chub; Proposed Rule. U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Register, 80:60754-60783.

______. 2017. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Hualapai Mexican Vole From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule. Federal Register, 82:28582-28588.

Appendix F Page 13 of 13

APPENDIX G

Custom Soil Resource Report for Mohave County, Arizona, Southern Part Golden Vertex Moss Mine Biological Analysis Area

United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State Mohave County, Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Arizona, Southern Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Part Golden Vertex Moss Mine Biological Evaluation Analysis Area

March 29, 2019 Preface

Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Contents

Preface...... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made...... 6 Soil Map...... 9 Soil Map...... 10 Legend...... 11 Map Unit Legend...... 12 Map Unit Descriptions...... 12 Mohave County, Arizona, Southern Part...... 15 21—Carrizo-Riverwash complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes MLRA 30...... 15 48—Goldroad-Rock outcrop complex, 20 to 60 percent slopes...... 16 60—Huevi very gravelly loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes...... 17 61—Huevi very gravelly loam, 10 to 40 percent slopes...... 18 91—Razorback extremely gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes...19 104—Rock outcrop-Razorback complex, 20 to 70 percent slopes...... 20 105—Rock outcrop-Sunrock complex, 35 to 65 percent slopes...... 21 116—Sunrock extremely gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes..... 22 117—Sunrock-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes...... 23 124—Tyro very stony loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes...... 24 Soil Information for All Uses...... 26 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use...... 26 Vegetative Productivity...... 26 Range Production (Normal Year)...... 26 Ecological Site Assessment...... 30 All Ecological Sites — Rangeland...... 30 Map—Dominant Ecological Site...... 31 Legend—Dominant Ecological Site...... 32 Table—Ecological Sites by Map Unit Component...... 33 Ecological Site Information for: R030XA104AZ — Granitic Hills 3-6" p.z...... 34 R030XA104AZ — Granitic Hills 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community...... 34 Ecological Site Information for: R030XA107AZ — Limy Slopes 3-6" p.z...... 36 R030XA107AZ — Limy Slopes 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community...... 36 Ecological Site Information for: R030XA115AZ — Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z...... 40 R030XA115AZ — Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community...... 40 Ecological Site Information for: R030XA118AZ — Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z...... 44 R030XA118AZ — Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community...... 44 Ecological Site Information for: R030XA120AZ — Sandy Loam Hills 3-6" p.z. Limy, Gravelly, Shallow...... 48 R030XA120AZ — Sandy Loam Hills 3-6" p.z. Limy, Gravelly, Shallow — Historic Climax Plant Community...... 48

4 Custom Soil Resource Report

Ecological Site Information for: R030XB201AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. Coarse...... 51 R030XB201AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. Coarse— Historic Climax Plant Community...... 51 Ecological Site Information for: R030XB220AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z...... 55 R030XB220AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community...... 55 References...... 59

5 How Soil Surveys Are Made

Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

6 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

7 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

8 Soil Map

The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 114° 32' 48'' W 48'' 32' 114° W 35'' 20' 114°

724000 725000 726000 727000 728000 729000 730000 731000 732000 733000 734000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000 35° 8' 6'' N 35° 8' 6'' N 3891000 3890000 3890000 3889000 3889000 3888000 3888000 3887000 3887000 3886000 3886000 3885000 3885000 3884000 3884000 3883000 3883000 3882000 3882000 3881000

35° 2' 33'' N 35° 2' 33'' N 724000 725000 726000 727000 728000 729000 730000 731000 732000 733000 734000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000

Map Scale: 1:50,000 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet. Meters N 0 500 1000 2000 3000 114° 32' 48'' W 48'' 32' 114° W 35'' 20' 114° Feet 0 2000 4000 8000 12000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 10 Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) 1:24,000. Stony Spot Soils Very Stony Spot Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Soil Map Unit Polygons measurements. Wet Spot Soil Map Unit Lines Other Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Map Unit Points Web Soil Survey URL: Special Line Features Special Point Features Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Borrow Pit projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Transportation distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Clay Spot Rails Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more Closed Depression accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Interstate Highways Gravel Pit US Routes This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Gravelly Spot of the version date(s) listed below. Major Roads Landfill Background Soil Survey Area: Mohave County, Arizona, Southern Part Lava Flow Aerial Photography Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 12, 2018

Marsh or swamp Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Mine or Quarry 1:50,000 or larger.

Miscellaneous Water Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 10, 2016—Sep Perennial Water 9, 2017

Rock Outcrop The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Saline Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor Sandy Spot shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

11 Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

21 Carrizo-Riverwash complex, 3 282.5 3.8% to 8 percent slopes MLRA 30 48 Goldroad-Rock outcrop 3,091.0 41.3% complex, 20 to 60 percent slopes 60 Huevi very gravelly loam, 2 to 514.7 6.9% 15 percent slopes 61 Huevi very gravelly loam, 10 to 402.4 5.4% 40 percent slopes 91 Razorback extremely gravelly 138.6 1.9% sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 104 Rock outcrop-Razorback 5.4 0.1% complex, 20 to 70 percent slopes 105 Rock outcrop-Sunrock complex, 1,171.6 15.7% 35 to 65 percent slopes 116 Sunrock extremely gravelly 1,312.4 17.5% sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 117 Sunrock-Rock outcrop complex, 442.7 5.9% 30 to 65 percent slopes 124 Tyro very stony loam, 2 to 10 122.5 1.6% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 7,483.7 100.0%

Map Unit Descriptions

The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

12 Custom Soil Resource Report

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion

13 Custom Soil Resource Report of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

14 Custom Soil Resource Report

Mohave County, Arizona, Southern Part

21—Carrizo-Riverwash complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes MLRA 30

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ss19 Elevation: 750 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 7 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 73 degrees F Frost-free period: 300 to 340 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Carrizo and similar soils: 75 percent Riverwash: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Carrizo Setting Landform: Flood plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium derived from igneous rock Typical profile A - 0 to 1 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand C1 - 1 to 23 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand C2 - 23 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 2.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Occasional Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z. (R030XA115AZ) Hydric soil rating: No

15 Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Riverwash Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Frequency of flooding: Frequent Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Ecological site: Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z. (R030XA115AZ)

48—Goldroad-Rock outcrop complex, 20 to 60 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm39 Elevation: 1,400 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 6 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 74 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 325 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Goldroad and similar soils: 60 percent Rock outcrop: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Goldroad Setting Landform: Hills, mountains Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Alluvium and colluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam Bw - 2 to 13 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2R - 13 to 23 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 20 to 60 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None

16 Custom Soil Resource Report

Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Granitic Hills 3-6" p.z. (R030XA104AZ)

60—Huevi very gravelly loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm3p Elevation: 600 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 6 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 74 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 325 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Huevi and similar soils: 75 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Huevi Setting Landform: Fan terraces Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Alluvium derived from mixed Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: very gravelly loam Bw - 2 to 9 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bkq - 9 to 27 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bk - 27 to 40 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam 2C - 40 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None

17 Custom Soil Resource Report

Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 30 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 3.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Limy Slopes 3-6" p.z. (R030XA107AZ)

61—Huevi very gravelly loam, 10 to 40 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm3q Elevation: 600 to 2,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 6 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 74 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 325 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Huevi and similar soils: 85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Huevi Setting Landform: Fan terraces Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Alluvium derived from mixed Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: very gravelly loam Bw - 2 to 9 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bkq - 9 to 27 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bk - 27 to 40 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam 2C - 40 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 10 to 40 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 30 percent

18 Custom Soil Resource Report

Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 3.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Limy Slopes 3-6" p.z. (R030XA107AZ)

91—Razorback extremely gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm4p Elevation: 2,400 to 3,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 64 to 70 degrees F Frost-free period: 230 to 280 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Razorback and similar soils: 90 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Razorback Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Alluvium and colluvium derived from volcanic rock Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam C - 2 to 5 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2R - 5 to 15 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c

19 Custom Soil Resource Report

Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. Coarse (R030XB201AZ)

104—Rock outcrop-Razorback complex, 20 to 70 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm53 Elevation: 1,800 to 4,150 feet Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 250 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Rock outcrop: 65 percent Razorback and similar soils: 30 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Razorback Setting Landform: Hills, mountains Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock and/or colluvium derived from igneous rock Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: very gravelly sandy loam C - 2 to 15 inches: very gravelly loam 2R - 15 to 25 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 20 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. (R030XB220AZ)

20 Custom Soil Resource Report

105—Rock outcrop-Sunrock complex, 35 to 65 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm54 Elevation: 1,150 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 6 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 74 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 325 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Rock outcrop: 45 percent Sunrock and similar soils: 40 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Sunrock Setting Landform: Mountains, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Colluvium over residuum weathered from igneous and metamorphic rock Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: extremely gravelly fine sandy loam Bw - 2 to 5 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cr - 5 to 6 inches: weathered bedrock 2R - 6 to 16 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 35 to 65 percent Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 9.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock; 4 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: D

21 Custom Soil Resource Report

Ecological site: Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z. (R030XA118AZ)

116—Sunrock extremely gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm5h Elevation: 1,350 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 6 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 78 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 340 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Sunrock and similar soils: 90 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Sunrock Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Colluvium derived from volcanic rock Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam Bw - 2 to 5 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2R - 5 to 15 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 35 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z. (R030XA118AZ)

22 Custom Soil Resource Report

117—Sunrock-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm5j Elevation: 1,850 to 2,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 6 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 74 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 325 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Sunrock and similar soils: 70 percent Rock outcrop: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Sunrock Setting Landform: Mountains, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Colluvium over residuum weathered from igneous and metamorphic rock Typical profile A - 0 to 2 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam Bw - 2 to 5 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cr - 5 to 6 inches: weathered bedrock 2R - 6 to 16 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock; 4 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z. (R030XA118AZ)

23 Custom Soil Resource Report

124—Tyro very stony loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1mm5r Elevation: 900 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 6 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 74 degrees F Frost-free period: 250 to 325 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Tyro and similar soils: 85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Tyro Setting Landform: Pediments Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock and/or alluvium derived from metamorphic rock Typical profile A - 0 to 1 inches: very stony loam Bw - 1 to 6 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bk - 6 to 9 inches: very gravelly coarse sandy loam Bkqm - 9 to 23 inches: indurated Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 10 percent Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 5 to 19 inches to duripan Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 40 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Sandy Loam Hills 3-6" p.z. Limy, Gravelly, Shallow (R030XA120AZ)

24 Custom Soil Resource Report

25 Soil Information for All Uses

Suitabilities and Limitations for Use

The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation.

Vegetative Productivity

Vegetative productivity includes estimates of potential vegetative production for a variety of land uses, including cropland, forestland, hayland, pastureland, horticulture and rangeland. In the underlying database, some states maintain crop yield data by individual map unit component. Other states maintain the data at the map unit level. Attributes are included for both, although only one or the other is likely to contain data for any given geographic area. For other land uses, productivity data is shown only at the map unit component level. Examples include potential crop yields under irrigated and nonirrigated conditions, forest productivity, forest site index, and total rangeland production under of normal, favorable and unfavorable conditions.

Range Production (Normal Year)

Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. In a normal year, growing conditions are about average. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content.

In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil. Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water.

26 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Range Production (Normal Year) 114° 32' 48'' W 48'' 32' 114° W 35'' 20' 114°

724000 725000 726000 727000 728000 729000 730000 731000 732000 733000 734000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000 35° 8' 6'' N 35° 8' 6'' N 3891000 3890000 3890000 3889000 3889000 3888000 3888000 3887000 3887000 3886000 3886000 3885000 3885000 3884000 3884000 3883000 3883000 3882000 3882000 3881000

35° 2' 33'' N 35° 2' 33'' N 724000 725000 726000 727000 728000 729000 730000 731000 732000 733000 734000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000

Map Scale: 1:50,000 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet. Meters N 0 500 1000 2000 3000 114° 32' 48'' W 48'' 32' 114° W 35'' 20' 114° Feet 0 2000 4000 8000 12000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 27 Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Transportation The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) Rails 1:24,000.

Soils Interstate Highways Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Soil Rating Polygons US Routes measurements. <= 111 Major Roads > 111 and <= 125 Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Background Web Soil Survey URL: > 125 and <= 156 Aerial Photography Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) > 156 and <= 225 Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator > 225 and <= 300 projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Not rated or not available Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more Soil Rating Lines accurate calculations of distance or area are required. <= 111 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as > 111 and <= 125 of the version date(s) listed below. > 125 and <= 156 Soil Survey Area: Mohave County, Arizona, Southern Part > 156 and <= 225 Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 12, 2018 > 225 and <= 300 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Not rated or not available 1:50,000 or larger. Soil Rating Points <= 111 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 10, 2016—Sep 9, 2017 > 111 and <= 125

> 125 and <= 156 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background > 156 and <= 225 imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor > 225 and <= 300 shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Not rated or not available

Water Features Streams and Canals

28 Custom Soil Resource Report

Table—Range Production (Normal Year)

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (pounds per Acres in AOI Percent of AOI acre per year)

21 Carrizo-Riverwash 300 282.5 3.8% complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes MLRA 30 48 Goldroad-Rock outcrop 225 3,091.0 41.3% complex, 20 to 60 percent slopes 60 Huevi very gravelly loam, 125 514.7 6.9% 2 to 15 percent slopes 61 Huevi very gravelly loam, 100 402.4 5.4% 10 to 40 percent slopes 91 Razorback extremely 300 138.6 1.9% gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 104 Rock outcrop-Razorback 111 5.4 0.1% complex, 20 to 70 percent slopes 105 Rock outcrop-Sunrock 118 1,171.6 15.7% complex, 35 to 65 percent slopes 116 Sunrock extremely 300 1,312.4 17.5% gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 117 Sunrock-Rock outcrop 156 442.7 5.9% complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes 124 Tyro very stony loam, 2 150 122.5 1.6% to 10 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 7,483.7 100.0%

Rating Options—Range Production (Normal Year)

Units of Measure: pounds per acre per year Aggregation Method: Weighted Average Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Interpret Nulls as Zero: Yes

29 Custom Soil Resource Report

Ecological Site Assessment

Individual soil map unit components can be correlated to a particular ecological site. The Ecological Site Assessment section includes ecological site descriptions, plant growth curves, state and transition models, and selected National Plants database information.

All Ecological Sites — Rangeland

An "ecological site" is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time; a characteristic hydrology, particularly infiltration and runoff, that has developed over time; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The vegetation, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated. Each is influenced by the others and influences the development of the others. For example, the hydrology of the site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The plant community on an ecological site is typified by an association of species that differs from that of other ecological sites in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total production. An ecological site name provides a general description of a particular ecological site. For example, "Loamy Upland" is the name of a rangeland ecological site. An "ecological site ID" is the symbol assigned to a particular ecological site. The map identifies the dominant ecological site for each map unit, aggregated by dominant condition. Other ecological sites may occur within each map unit. Each map unit typically consists of one or more components (soils and/or miscellaneous areas). Each soil component is associated with an ecological site. Miscellaneous areas, such as rock outcrop, sand dunes, and badlands, have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation and therefore are not linked to an ecological site. The table below the map lists all of the ecological sites for each map unit component in your area of interest.

30 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Dominant Ecological Site 114° 32' 48'' W 48'' 32' 114° W 35'' 20' 114°

724000 725000 726000 727000 728000 729000 730000 731000 732000 733000 734000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000 35° 8' 6'' N 35° 8' 6'' N 3891000 3890000 3890000 3889000 3889000 3888000 3888000 3887000 3887000 3886000 3886000 3885000 3885000 3884000 3884000 3883000 3883000 3882000 3882000 3881000

35° 2' 33'' N 35° 2' 33'' N 724000 725000 726000 727000 728000 729000 730000 731000 732000 733000 734000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000

Map Scale: 1:50,000 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet. Meters N 0 500 1000 2000 3000 114° 32' 48'' W 48'' 32' 114° W 35'' 20' 114° Feet 0 2000 4000 8000 12000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 31 Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Not rated or not available The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) 1:24,000. Water Features Soils Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Soil Rating Polygons Transportation measurements. R030XA104AZ Rails R030XA107AZ Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Interstate Highways Web Soil Survey URL: R030XA115AZ US Routes Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) R030XA118AZ Major Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator R030XA120AZ Background projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the R030XB201AZ Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more Not rated or not available accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

Soil Rating Lines This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as R030XA104AZ of the version date(s) listed below. R030XA107AZ Soil Survey Area: Mohave County, Arizona, Southern Part R030XA115AZ Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 12, 2018 R030XA118AZ Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales R030XA120AZ 1:50,000 or larger. R030XB201AZ Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 10, 2016—Sep Not rated or not available 9, 2017 Soil Rating Points R030XA104AZ The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background R030XA107AZ imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor R030XA115AZ shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

R030XA118AZ

R030XA120AZ

R030XB201AZ

32 Custom Soil Resource Report

Table—Ecological Sites by Map Unit Component

Map unit symbol Map unit name Component name Ecological site Acres in AOI Percent of AOI (percent)

21 Carrizo-Riverwash Carrizo (75%) R030XA115AZ — 282.5 3.8% complex, 3 to 8 Sandy Wash 3-6" percent slopes p.z. MLRA 30 Riverwash (15%) R030XA115AZ — Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z. 48 Goldroad-Rock Goldroad (60%) R030XA104AZ — 3,091.0 41.3% outcrop complex, Granitic Hills 3-6" 20 to 60 percent p.z. slopes Rock outcrop (20%) 60 Huevi very gravelly Huevi (75%) R030XA107AZ — 514.7 6.9% loam, 2 to 15 Limy Slopes 3-6" percent slopes p.z. 61 Huevi very gravelly Huevi (85%) R030XA107AZ — 402.4 5.4% loam, 10 to 40 Limy Slopes 3-6" percent slopes p.z. 91 Razorback Razorback (90%) R030XB201AZ — 138.6 1.9% extremely gravelly Andesite Hills 6-9" sandy loam, 15 to p.z. Coarse 35 percent slopes 104 Rock outcrop- Rock outcrop (65%) 5.4 0.1% Razorback complex, 20 to 70 Razorback (30%) R030XB220AZ — percent slopes Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. 105 Rock outcrop- Rock outcrop (45%) 1,171.6 15.7% Sunrock complex, 35 to 65 percent Sunrock (40%) R030XA118AZ — slopes Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z. 116 Sunrock extremely Sunrock (90%) R030XA118AZ — 1,312.4 17.5% gravelly sandy Volcanic Hills 3-6" loam, 15 to 35 p.z. percent slopes 117 Sunrock-Rock Sunrock (70%) R030XA118AZ — 442.7 5.9% outcrop complex, Volcanic Hills 3-6" 30 to 65 percent p.z. slopes Rock outcrop (20%) 124 Tyro very stony Tyro (85%) R030XA120AZ — 122.5 1.6% loam, 2 to 10 Sandy Loam Hills percent slopes 3-6" p.z. Limy, Gravelly, Shallow Totals for Area of Interest 7,483.7 100.0%

33 Custom Soil Resource Report

Ecological Site Information for: R030XA104AZ — Granitic Hills 3-6" p.z.

R030XA104AZ — Granitic Hills 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

The dominant aspect of the site is a sparse desert-shrub cover with annual grasses and forbs intermixed. Creosotebush, white brittlebush and white bursage are the major shrubs. This site is ephemeral range (grasses and forbs) for grazing. Because of steep rocky slopes, domestic livestock use is very difficult to achieve. The stocking rate will have to be determined each year based on growth from winter to spring moisture.

34 Custom Soil Resource Report

Plant Community Tables— R030XA104AZ — Granitic Hills 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

Plant Type Low Representative Value High

Grass/Grasslike 38 31 50 Forb 25 44 38 Shrub/Vine 162 175 188 Totals 225 250 276

Grass/Grasslike

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 1 0 8 parish threeawn Aristida purpurea var. parishii 0 8 2 2 12 big galleta Pleuraphis rigida 2 12 3 0 5 bush muhly Muhlenbergia porteri 0 5 4 0 5 black grama Bouteloua eriopoda 0 5 5 0 5 sixweeks fescue Vulpia octoflora 0 5 6 2 5 sixweeks grama Bouteloua barbata 2 5 7 2 12

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 8 2 12 desert globemallow Sphaeralcea ambigua 2 12 9 2 8 desert indianwheat Plantago ovata 2 8 10 2 12 11 2 12

35 Custom Soil Resource Report

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 12 38 50 white brittlebush Encelia farinosa 38 50 13 50 75 creosotebush Larrea tridentata 50 75 14 38 50 white bursage Ambrosia dumosa 38 50 15 0 8 nevada mormon tea Ephedra nevadensis 0 8 16 0 5 white ratany Krameria grayi 0 5 17 0 5 sweetbush bebbia Bebbia juncea 0 5 18 0 2 teddybear cholla Cylindropuntia bigelovii 0 2 19 2 12

Growth Curve Name 30.1 3-6" p.z. all sites Growth Curve Description Growth begins in late winter, most growth occurs in the spring. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 7% 30% 32% 13% 7% 3% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0%

Ecological Site Information for: R030XA107AZ — Limy Slopes 3-6" p.z.

R030XA107AZ — Limy Slopes 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

The dominant aspect of the site is a desert shrub. Creosotebush, white bursage and white brittlebush are the major shrubs.

36 Custom Soil Resource Report

Because of the low density of plants and the lack of desirable species for grazing, it is hard to measure degredation. A fire will not carry on this site and grazing is limited to annual grasses, forbs and low amounts of white bursage. Plant community changes are limited by low moisture and high temperatures.

37 Custom Soil Resource Report

Plant Community Tables— R030XA107AZ — Limy Slopes 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

Plant Type Low Representative Value High

Grass/Grasslike 1 4 4 Forb 4 10 13 Shrub/Vine 66 74 75 Totals 71 88 92

Grass/Grasslike

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 1 0 2 fluffgrass Dasyochloa pulchella 0 2 2 1 3

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 3 0 3 desert globemallow Sphaeralcea ambigua 0 3 4 4 9 desert indianwheat Plantago ovata 4 9 5 0 3 desert trumpet buckwheat Eriogonum inflatum 0 3 6 1 4

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 7 44 53 creosotebush Larrea tridentata 44 53 8 13 18 white bursage Ambrosia dumosa 13 18 9 0 2 white ratany Krameria grayi 0 2

38 Custom Soil Resource Report

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 10 4 9 white brittlebush Encelia farinosa 4 9 11 0 2

Growth Curve Name 30.1 3-6" p.z. all sites Growth Curve Description Growth begins in late winter, most growth occurs in the spring. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 7% 30% 32% 13% 7% 3% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0%

Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum

Grass/grasslike — — Forb — — Shrub/vine/liana — 2.000% Tree — — Non-vascular plants — — Biological crust — — Non-Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum Litter — — Surface fragments > 0.25" and <= 3" — — Surface fragments > 3" — — Bedrock — — Water — — Bare ground — — Down wood, fine-small — — Down wood, fine-medium — — Down wood, fine-large — — Down wood, coarse-small — — Down wood, coarse-large — — Tree snags — — Hard snags — — Soft snags — —

Height Above Ground Grass / Grasslike Forbs Shrubs / Vines Trees Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. <= 0.5 feet — 2% — 2% — — — —

39 Custom Soil Resource Report

Height Above Ground Grass / Grasslike Forbs Shrubs / Vines Trees Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. > 0.5 - < 1 feet — — — — — — — — > 1 - <= 2 feet — — — — 4% 8% — — > 2 - <= 4.5 feet — — — — — — — — > 4.5 - <= 13 feet — — — — — — — — > 13 - <= 40 feet — — — — — — — — > 40 - <= 80 feet — — — — — — — — > 80 - <= 120 feet — — — — — — — — > 120 feet — — — — — — — —

Ecological Site Information for: R030XA115AZ — Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z.

R030XA115AZ — Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

The dominant aspect of the site is a desert-shrub community. Grasses and forbs are present among the shrubs. Catclaw acacia can be the tallest shrub, especially in the drainage channels. White burrobrush is the dominant shrub. Big galleta and bush muhly are the major perennial grasses.

40 Custom Soil Resource Report

Plant Community Tables— R030XA115AZ — Sandy Wash 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

Plant Type Low Representative Value High

Grass/Grasslike 100 135 150 Forb 50 65 75 Shrub/Vine 250 300 325 Totals 400 500 550

Grass/Grasslike

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 1 25 50 big galleta Pleuraphis rigida 25 50 2 25 50 bush muhly Muhlenbergia porteri 25 50 3 0 5 sixweeks grama Bouteloua barbata 0 5 4 0 5 sixweeks fescue Vulpia octoflora 0 5 5 0 10 parish threeawn Aristida purpurea var. parishii 0 10 6 10 40

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 7 25 50 desert indianwheat Plantago ovata 25 50 8 5 40 9 5 10

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 10 25 50 catclaw acacia Senegalia greggii 25 50

41 Custom Soil Resource Report

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 11 125 175 white burrobrush Hymenoclea salsola 125 175 12 5 25 smoketree Psorothamnus spinosus 5 25 13 5 25 creosotebush Larrea tridentata 5 25 14 5 25 white bursage Ambrosia dumosa 5 25 15 0 15 foothill palo verde Parkinsonia microphylla 0 15 16 5 25 anderson wolfberry Lycium andersonii 5 25 17 5 25 white brittlebush Encelia farinosa 5 25 18 0 10 sweetbush bebbia Bebbia juncea 0 10 19 0 15 mexican bladdersage Salazaria mexicana 0 15 20 5 25

Growth Curve Name 30.1 3-6" p.z. all sites Growth Curve Description Growth begins in late winter, most growth occurs in the spring. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 7% 30% 32% 13% 7% 3% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0%

42 Custom Soil Resource Report

Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum

Grass/grasslike — — Forb — — Shrub/vine/liana — 2.000% Tree — — Non-vascular plants — — Biological crust — — Non-Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum Litter — — Surface fragments > 0.25" and <= 3" — — Surface fragments > 3" — — Bedrock — — Water — — Bare ground — — Down wood, fine-small — — Down wood, fine-medium — — Down wood, fine-large — — Down wood, coarse-small — — Down wood, coarse-large — — Tree snags — — Hard snags — — Soft snags — —

Height Above Ground Grass / Grasslike Forbs Shrubs / Vines Trees Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. <= 0.5 feet — — — 2% — — — — > 0.5 - < 1 feet 1% 3% — — — — — — > 1 - <= 2 feet — — — — — — — — > 2 - <= 4.5 feet — — — — 6% 10% — — > 4.5 - <= 13 feet — — — — — — — — > 13 - <= 40 feet — — — — — — — — > 40 - <= 80 feet — — — — — — — — > 80 - <= 120 feet — — — — — — — — > 120 feet — — — — — — — —

43 Custom Soil Resource Report

Ecological Site Information for: R030XA118AZ — Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z.

R030XA118AZ — Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

The dominant aspect of this site is a desert shrub. Some grasses and forbs are also present. Dominant shrub are creosotebush, white bursage, and white brittlebush. Besides annual grasses, desert needlegrass may be present.

The soil-moisture plant relationship is fair-to-good on this site. The surface coarse fragments help slow down evaporation by providing shade, and the cracks in the bedrock provide repositories for water.

44 Custom Soil Resource Report

Plant Community Tables— R030XA118AZ — Volcanic Hills 3-6" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

Plant Type Low Representative Value High

Grass/Grasslike 20 25 30 Forb 10 15 20 Shrub/Vine 150 160 170 Totals 180 200 220

Grass/Grasslike

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 1 2 10 desert needlegrass Achnatherum speciosum 2 10 2 0 2 slim tridens Tridens muticus 0 2 3 2 4 sixweeks needle grama Bouteloua aristidoides 2 4 4 2 4 sixweeks grama Bouteloua barbata 2 4 5 2 4 sixweeks fescue Vulpia octoflora 2 4 6 2 4 sixweeks threeawn Aristida adscensionis 2 4 7 2 4 aristida Aristida 2 4 8 0 2 bush muhly Muhlenbergia porteri 0 2

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 9 2 4 desert globemallow Sphaeralcea ambigua 2 4 10 2 4 desert indianwheat Plantago ovata 2 4

45 Custom Soil Resource Report

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 11 2 4 desert pepperweed Lepidium fremontii 2 4 12 2 4 13 2 4

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 14 30 40 white brittlebush Encelia farinosa 30 40 15 40 50 creosotebush Larrea tridentata 40 50 16 40 60 white bursage Ambrosia dumosa 40 60 17 2 10 white ratany Krameria grayi 2 10 18 0 4 mojave yucca Yucca schidigera 0 4 19 0 2 beavertail pricklypear Opuntia basilaris 0 2 20 0 4 buckhorn cholla Cylindropuntia acanthocarpa var. 0 4 acanthocarpa 21 0 2 teddybear cholla Cylindropuntia bigelovii 0 2 22 0 4 flattop buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum 0 4 23 2 6 encelia Encelia 2 6 24 2 4 nevada mormon tea Ephedra nevadensis 2 4 25 2 10

46 Custom Soil Resource Report

Growth Curve Name 30.1 3-6" p.z. all sites Growth Curve Description Growth begins in late winter, most growth occurs in the spring. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 7% 30% 32% 13% 7% 3% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0%

Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum

Grass/grasslike — — Forb — — Shrub/vine/liana — 2.000% Tree — — Non-vascular plants — — Biological crust — — Non-Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum Litter — — Surface fragments > 0.25" and <= 3" — — Surface fragments > 3" — — Bedrock — — Water — — Bare ground — — Down wood, fine-small — — Down wood, fine-medium — — Down wood, fine-large — — Down wood, coarse-small — — Down wood, coarse-large — — Tree snags — — Hard snags — — Soft snags — —

Height Above Ground Grass / Grasslike Forbs Shrubs / Vines Trees Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. <= 0.5 feet — — — 2% — — — — > 0.5 - < 1 feet — 2% — — — — — — > 1 - <= 2 feet — — — — 6% 10% — — > 2 - <= 4.5 feet — — — — — — — — > 4.5 - <= 13 feet — — — — — — — — > 13 - <= 40 feet — — — — — — — — > 40 - <= 80 feet — — — — — — — — > 80 - <= 120 feet — — — — — — — — > 120 feet — — — — — — — —

47 Custom Soil Resource Report

Ecological Site Information for: R030XA120AZ — Sandy Loam Hills 3-6" p.z. Limy, Gravelly, Shallow

R030XA120AZ — Sandy Loam Hills 3-6" p.z. Limy, Gravelly, Shallow— Historic Climax Plant Community

The dominant aspect of the site is a sparse stand of desert shrubs. Creosotebush and white brittlebush are the major shrubs. Annual forbs and annual grasses are present. In above average moisture years, the annuals are abundant and showy. The stocking rate will have to be determined each year based on growth from witner and spring moisture.

Because of low density of plants and the lack of desirable species for grazing, it is hard to measure degradation. A fire usually will not carry on this site and grazing is limited to annual grasses and forbs.

48 Custom Soil Resource Report

Plant Community Tables— R030XA120AZ — Sandy Loam Hills 3-6" p.z. Limy, Gravelly, Shallow— Historic Climax Plant Community

Plant Type Low Representative Value High

Grass/Grasslike 16 20 32 Forb 49 55 81 Shrub/Vine 244 250 276 Totals 309 325 389

Grass/Grasslike

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 1 3 26 sixweeks fescue Vulpia octoflora 3 26 2 6 26

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 3 3 16 desert indianwheat Plantago ovata 3 16 4 3 6 turkshead Chorizanthe rigida 3 6 5 32 65

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 6 146 179 creosotebush Larrea tridentata 146 179 7 49 81 white brittlebush Encelia farinosa 49 81 8 6 16 white ratany Krameria grayi 6 16 9 0 6 whitestem paperflower Psilostrophe cooperi 0 6

49 Custom Soil Resource Report

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 10 0 3 teddybear cholla Cylindropuntia bigelovii 0 3 11 0 3 ocotillo Fouquieria splendens 0 3 12 0 6 white bursage Ambrosia dumosa 0 6 13 0 10

Growth Curve Name 30.1 3-6" p.z. all sites Growth Curve Description Growth begins in late winter, most growth occurs in the spring. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 7% 30% 32% 13% 7% 3% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0%

Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum

Grass/grasslike — — Forb — 2.000% Shrub/vine/liana — 2.000% Tree — — Non-vascular plants — — Biological crust — — Non-Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum Litter — — Surface fragments > 0.25" and <= 3" — — Surface fragments > 3" — — Bedrock — — Water — — Bare ground — — Down wood, fine-small — — Down wood, fine-medium — — Down wood, fine-large — — Down wood, coarse-small — — Down wood, coarse-large — — Tree snags — — Hard snags — — Soft snags — —

50 Custom Soil Resource Report

Height Above Ground Grass / Grasslike Forbs Shrubs / Vines Trees Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. <= 0.5 feet — 2% 4% 6% — — — — > 0.5 - < 1 feet — — — — — — — — > 1 - <= 2 feet — — — — 4% 6% — — > 2 - <= 4.5 feet — — — — — — — — > 4.5 - <= 13 feet — — — — — — — — > 13 - <= 40 feet — — — — — — — — > 40 - <= 80 feet — — — — — — — — > 80 - <= 120 feet — — — — — — — — > 120 feet — — — — — — — —

Ecological Site Information for: R030XB201AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. Coarse

R030XB201AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. Coarse— Historic Climax Plant Community

The dominant aspect of this ecological site plant community is of desert shrubs. The site is dominated by creosotebush and white bursage, which is due to high temperatures and low precipitation. This site has poor soil moisture plant relationship.

Degradation occurs only because of catastrophic events such as fire, flood, or man- caused disturbances. If the shrubs are lost, there would be only annual plants, leaving the soil exposed for most of the year. Soil protection is critical as this soil is only about 4-5 inches deep.

The site's total biomas production by weight (air-dried)is comprised of: grasses and grasslike plants - 1 to 5 percent, forbs 1 to 5 percent, and shrubs 85 to 95 percent.

51 Custom Soil Resource Report

Plant Community Tables— R030XB201AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z. Coarse— Historic Climax Plant Community

Plant Type Low Representative Value High

Grass/Grasslike 1 5 9 Forb 1 5 9 Shrub/Vine 74 115 182 Totals 76 125 200

Grass/Grasslike

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 1 1 2 sixweeks grama Bouteloua barbata 1 2 2 1 5

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 3 1 6 desert globemallow Sphaeralcea ambigua 1 6 4 1 4

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 5 44 56 creosotebush Larrea tridentata 44 56 6 38 50 white bursage Ambrosia dumosa 38 50 7 1 6 nevada mormon tea Ephedra nevadensis 1 6 8 1 6 range ratany Krameria erecta 1 6 9 0 4 rayless goldenhead Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus 0 4

52 Custom Soil Resource Report

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 10 0 2 anderson wolfberry Lycium andersonii 0 2 11 1 4 mojave yucca Yucca schidigera 1 4 12 0 1 flattop buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum 0 1 13 0 1 opuntia Opuntia 0 1

Growth Curve Name 30.2 6-9" p.z. upland sites Growth Curve Description Growth begins in the late winter, most growth occurs in the spring. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 2% 19% 33% 18% 7% 7% 11% 3% 0% 0% 0%

53 Custom Soil Resource Report

Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum

Grass/grasslike — — Forb — — Shrub/vine/liana — 2.000% Tree — — Non-vascular plants — — Biological crust — — Non-Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum Litter — — Surface fragments > 0.25" and <= 3" — — Surface fragments > 3" — — Bedrock — — Water — — Bare ground — — Down wood, fine-small — — Down wood, fine-medium — — Down wood, fine-large — — Down wood, coarse-small — — Down wood, coarse-large — — Tree snags — — Hard snags — — Soft snags — —

Height Above Ground Grass / Grasslike Forbs Shrubs / Vines Trees Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. <= 0.5 feet — — — 2% — — — — > 0.5 - < 1 feet — 2% — — — — — — > 1 - <= 2 feet — — — — 4% 6% — — > 2 - <= 4.5 feet — — — — — — — — > 4.5 - <= 13 feet — — — — — — — — > 13 - <= 40 feet — — — — — — — — > 40 - <= 80 feet — — — — — — — — > 80 - <= 120 feet — — — — — — — — > 120 feet — — — — — — — —

54 Custom Soil Resource Report

Ecological Site Information for: R030XB220AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z.

R030XB220AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

The dominant aspect of this plant community is a desert shrub. It consists of a mix of four shrubs: creosotebush, white bursage, Nevada Mormon tea and flattop buckwheat. Desert needlegrass is usually present on this site and is sometimes abundant. The stocking rate will have to be determined each year based on growth from winter and spring moisture and steep slopes. The climax plant community is best used to support desert bighorn sheep which are well suited to the site.

55 Custom Soil Resource Report

Plant Community Tables— R030XB220AZ — Andesite Hills 6-9" p.z.— Historic Climax Plant Community

Plant Type Low Representative Value High

Grass/Grasslike 12 40 70 Forb 1 10 17 Shrub/Vine 87 200 313 Totals 100 250 400

Grass/Grasslike

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 1 25 38 desert needlegrass Achnatherum speciosum 25 28 2 0 5 slim tridens Tridens muticus 0 5 3 0 5 aristida Aristida 0 5

Forb

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 4 0 2 desert globemallow Sphaeralcea ambigua 0 2 5 2 10

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 6 25 38 creosotebush Larrea tridentata 25 38 7 50 75 white bursage Ambrosia dumosa 50 75 8 25 38 nevada mormon tea Ephedra nevadensis 25 38 9 25 38 flattop buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium 25 38

56 Custom Soil Resource Report

Shrub/Vine

Group Plant Common Name Plant Scientific Name Annual Production Pounds Per Acre Low High 10 2 5 anderson wolfberry Lycium andersonii 2 5 11 0 8 catclaw acacia Senegalia greggii 0 8 12 0 8 range ratany Krameria erecta 0 8 13 2 8 opuntia Opuntia 2 8 14 0 8 mojave sage Salvia mohavensis 0 8 15 0 2 mojave woodyaster Xylorhiza tortifolia var. tortifolia 0 2 16 2 12

Growth Curve Name 30.2 6-9" p.z. upland sites Growth Curve Description Growth begins in the late winter, most growth occurs in the spring. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 2% 19% 33% 18% 7% 7% 11% 3% 0% 0% 0%

57 Custom Soil Resource Report

Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum

Grass/grasslike — — Forb — — Shrub/vine/liana — 2.000% Tree — — Non-vascular plants — — Biological crust — — Non-Vegetative Cover Type Minimum Maximum Litter — — Surface fragments > 0.25" and <= 3" — — Surface fragments > 3" — — Bedrock — — Water — — Bare ground — — Down wood, fine-small — — Down wood, fine-medium — — Down wood, fine-large — — Down wood, coarse-small — — Down wood, coarse-large — — Tree snags — — Hard snags — — Soft snags — —

Height Above Ground Grass / Grasslike Forbs Shrubs / Vines Trees Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. <= 0.5 feet — — — 2% — — — — > 0.5 - < 1 feet — 2% — — — — — — > 1 - <= 2 feet — — — — — — 8% 12% > 2 - <= 4.5 feet — — — — — — — — > 4.5 - <= 13 feet — — — — — — — — > 13 - <= 40 feet — — — — — — — — > 40 - <= 80 feet — — — — — — — — > 80 - <= 120 feet — — — — — — — — > 120 feet — — — — — — — —

58 References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

59 Custom Soil Resource Report

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

60