Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal

1601 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20009-1063

Katherine A. Meyer Eric R. Glitzenstein Howard M. Crystal William S. Eubanks II Telephone (202) 588-5206 Fax (202) 588-5049 www.meyerglitz.com

November 6, 2013 By Certified and Electronic Mail Sally Jewell, Secretary United States Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240 Daniel Ashe, Director United States Fish & Wildlife Service 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240 Neil Kornze, Acting Director Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240 Re: Violations of the Endangered Species Act in Connection With the Biological Opinion for the Stateline Solar and Silver State South Projects (Sept. 30, 2013)

Dear Secretary Jewell, Director Ashe, and Acting Director Kornze: We are writing on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife (hereafter Defenders) to provide notice, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1540(g), that in issuing and relying upon the September 30, 2013 Biological Opinion for the Stateline Solar and Silver State South Projects in San Bernardino County, California and Clark County, Nevada, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are violating Sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA and its implementing regulations, id. 1536(a) and other provisions of the ESA, and that, as a result, any take of the threatened Mojave desert tortoise that may occur associated with these projects will also be in violation of ESA Section 9. Id. 1538. While Defenders wholeheartedly supports the development of renewable energy projects in appropriate locations, that should not occur at the expense of imperiled wildlife and in contravention of the ESA.

BACKGROUND A. The Endangered Species Act

Recognized as the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation, Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978), the ESA prohibits the take of any member of an endangered or threatened species, without appropriate authorization. See 16 U.S.C. 1538(a). Take is defined broadly, including to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species. Id. 1532(19); see also 50 C.F.R. 17.3 (defining harass and harm); Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 704 (1995) (explaining that Congress defined take in the broadest possible manner to include every conceivable way in which a person can take or attempt to take any fish or wildlife) (citations omitted). Where, as here, a private party requires federal authorization for a project that may affect listed species, the permitting agency called the action agency must engage in a consultation with the FWS to evaluate the impacts of the project on the species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). That consultation must rely on the best scientific and commercial data available, id. 1536(a)(2), to evaluate those impacts, including the extent to which the project may take the species, and must culminate in a Biological Opinion (Bi-Op) from the Service determining whether the project, considered along with the other activities and threats impacting the species, is, or is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat . . . . Id. 1536(a)(2). Jeopardy is evaluated by considering whether the project reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. 50 C.F.R. 402.02. Even where a Bi-Op concludes that no jeopardy will occur, it must analyze the extent to which the project will result in the take of listed species, including the amount of incidental take that will occur, and must include reasonable and prudent measures as well as terms and conditions to implement those measures to minimize the extent of the take. 16 U.S.C. 1536(b); 50 C.F.R. 402.14(i)(1)(i). Take in excess of the incidental take statement is prohibited, and thus once the take authorization is reached the action agency must reinitiate consultation to comply with the Act. While take permitted under a lawful Bi-Op that has been incorporated into a permit issued by the action agency is immune from liability under the ESA, that liability shield does not apply if the Bi-Op is issued in violation of the ESAs strict requirements. Thus, take that may occur pursuant to a Bi-Op found to be unlawful is itself unlawful, 16 U.S.C. 1538, and may be subject to criminal and civil federal enforcement actions, as well as civil actions by citizens for declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. 1540. In addition to these requirements, Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA affirmatively requires federal agencies to utilize their authorities and programs to benefit listed species. Id. 1536(a)(1); Alaska v. Lubchenco, 723 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining this provision 2

requires that agencies implement programs to conserve the species); Sierra Club v. Glickman, 156 F.3d 606, 616 (5th Cir.1998) (Given the plain language of the statute and its legislative history, we conclude that Congress intended to impose an affirmative duty on each federal agency to conserve each of the species listed [and] to achieve this objective, the agencies must consult with [the] FWS as to each of the listed species, not just undertake a generalized consultation.). Likewise, section 4 of the ESA requires that the FWS shall develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species . . . . 16 U.S.C. 1533(f)(1). B. The Imperiled Desert Tortoise

As explained in the species 2011 Revised Recovery Plan, the distinct Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (hereafter Tortoise), which consists of all tortoises north and west of the Colorado River, faces numerous threats, and preservation of the species remaining habitat is one of the key recovery actions necessary to protect remaining populations. See Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (May 6, 2011) (hereafter Recovery Plan) (Attachment 1 (Recovery Plan Excerpts)). Unfortunately, as discussed below, the large-scale solar projects at issue here will fundamentally undermine that recovery objective and threaten the very survival of the population. The Tortoise was listed as threatened in 1994. 55 Fed. Reg. 12178 (Apr. 2, 1990). In listing the species the Service noted repeatedly that among the threats facing the species was the ongoing loss of habitat due to, inter alia, energy projects. E.g. id. (The Mojave population of the desert tortoise is threatened by loss and degradation of habitat due to construction activities (roads, pipelines, powerlines, housing developments, energy developments)). As the Service summarized, habitat is deteriorating and has been lost in many parts of the tortoises range due to an accelerating rate of human uses of the desert. Id. Of particular concern related to habitat loss was the fragmentation of remaining populations. Id. at 12,188. As the Service explained: Long-term survival of these isolated pockets will be aggravated by normal random fluctuations in the population or the environment and catastrophic events that could lead to extirpation. Of particular concern with the tortoise is the continued drought that has affected most of its Mojave range over the past several years. The resulting physiological stress caused by poor nutrition can be accentuated by other perturbations in the environment, such as the increased presence of predators, fire, off-highway vehicles, and competition for existing forage. The synergistic effects of these disturbances could result in the complete inability of both individual animals and isolated groups to return to and maintain population levels that are viable on a long-term basis. Id. As further discussed in the Recovery Plan, the species unique habitat requirements make the continued availability of suitable, unfragmented habitat particularly important. Males may range more than 1.5 square miles in their lifetime, and may make periodic movements of up to 7 3

miles at a time. Recovery Plan at 10. The species requires 13 to 20 years to reach sexual maturity and has low reproductive rates over many years. Id. at 32. Because they experience relatively high mortality earlier in life, the Recovery Plan explains that high adult survivorship is critical to the species persistence, and the slow growth rate of the population can leave them susceptible to extirpation events in areas where adult survivorship has been reduced. Id. Moreover, as the Recovery Plan further explains: Another factor integral to desert tortoise recovery is maintaining the genetic variability of the species and sufficient ecological heterogeneity within and among populations (Murphy et al. 2007; Hagerty and Tracy 2010). This variation is necessary to allow tortoises to adapt to changes in the environment over time (USFWS 1994a). Finally, because desert tortoises occupy large home ranges, the long-term persistence of extensive, unfragmented habitats is essential for the survival of the species (USFWS 1994a). The loss or degradation of these habitats to urbanization, habitat conversion from frequent wildfire, or other landscape-modifying activities place the desert tortoise at increased risk of extirpation because the tortoise depends on the cover of shrubs and annuals for forage provided by contiguous native vegetation communities. Recovery Plan at 32 (emphasis added). Although the Recovery Plan recognizes certain particularly important conservation areas, the FWS recognized thatactivities occurring on lands beyond the boundaries of existing tortoise conservation areas can affect tortoise populations, important linkages between tortoise conservation areas, and the effectiveness of conservation actions occurring within the conservation area boundaries. Id. at 35; id. at 199 (habitats, populations, and actions outside these areas may also either impact or contribute to recovery of the species . . . and their importance is in no way diminished.). C. Existing Destruction and Fragmentation of Desert Tortoise Habitat and Corridors, And the Two Additional Large-Scale Solar Projects Proposed Near Primm, Nevada.

As discussed in the Recovery Plan, the FWS has faced an enormous number of proposals in recent years to develop renewable energy projects and most frequently large-scale solar projects in Tortoise habitat. As of November 2010, nine solar projects in California and one in Nevada were approved in Tortoise habitat, and seven more were pending approval, in addition to three wind power projects. Recovery Plan at 16. Taken together, these projects would impact over 90,000 acres of the species remaining habitat, and result in the translocation of over 1,500 Tortoises. Id.; see also id. at 27. As the Recovery Plan emphasized, while the BLM is considering these projects on a case-by-case basis, potential long-term effects of large-scale energy development fragmenting or isolating desert tortoise conservation areas and cutting off gene flow between these areas have not been evaluated. Id. at 16 (emphasis added). A map reflecting the fragmentation of Tortoise habitat from existing and proposed projects in the Ivanpah Valley is Attached. See Attachment 2. In addition to these projects, as explained in the Bi-Op at issue here, the FWS has also issued Bi-Ops for various military projects removing many more thousands of acres of habitat, 4

and translocating hundreds more tortoises. Bi-Op at 27. As the FWS summarized in the current Bi-Op: The incremental effect of the[se] larger actions (i.e., solar development, the expansions of Fort Irwin, and the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center) on the desert tortoise is unlikely to be positive, despite the numerous conservation measures that have been (or will be) implemented as part of the actions. The acquisition of private lands as mitigation for most of these actions increases the level of protection afforded these lands; however, these acquisitions do not create new habitat and Federal, State, and privately managed lands remain subject to most of the threats and stresses we discussed previously in this section. Although land managers have been implementing measures to manage these threats, we have been unable, to date, to determine whether the measures have been successful, at least in part because of the low reproductive capacity of the desert tortoise. Therefore, the conversion of habitat into areas that are unsuitable for this species continues the trend of constricting the desert tortoise into a smaller portion of its range. Bi-Op at 28 (emphasis added). Now BLM proposes to grant rights-of-way to allow development of two more large-scale solar projects in the Ivanpah Valley, the Stateline and the Silver State South projects. Silver State North less than a mile east of Primm has already been approved and developed. Bi-Op at 38. Stateline will remove 1,651 more acres of habitat for the Tortoise approximately two miles southwest of Primm, Nevada. Silver State South, a mile east of Primm, will remove an additional 2,388 acres of habitat east of the Silver State North project. Bi-Op at 4; see also Attachment 2 (overlay map of all projects). At both sites the proposal includes installation of Tortoise fencing to exclude the species from the project sites, vegetative removal, and mowing and grading to prepare the area for solar panel installations. Bi-Op at 4. The solar arrays will be 6 to 8 feet off the ground and may be tilted outward. Id. at 7. The FWS estimates that at the Stateline construction site there are approximately 94 larger Tortoises and 853 smaller animals. Bi-Op at 89. The agency estimates that although they will all be taken, most of the large Tortoises will be relocated. Id. Although the FWS states that it will be difficult to monitor the extent of death or mortality, particularly for smaller Tortoises, the Incidental Take Statement authorizes the death or injury of up to three Tortoises from construction activities. Id. at 90. For the translocation program, the Bi-Op authorizes death or wounding to up to two Tortoises. Id. at 91. Finally, the FWS authorizes the take of up to two Tortoises per year during the 30 year life of the project for an additional 60 Tortoises. Id. at 92. With regard to Silver State South, the Service estimates there are 115 large Tortoises and 1.053 smaller animals. Bi-Op at 93. For that project the FWS authorizes incidental take of up to five Tortoises during construction and an additional two from the translocation process. Id. The Service further authorizes take of up to three additional adult Tortoises per year over 30 years for an additional 90 Tortoises. Id. at 94.

D.

The FWSs Comments that The Silver State South Project Should Not be Approved, and the FWSs Subsequent Bi-Op Ignoring those Comments.

In official comments on the Draft EIS for the Silver State South project, FWS urged BLM to reject the project altogether, in light of serious concern[s] about habitat fragmentation and demographic and genetic isolation of desert tortoise populations within the Ivanpah Valley. November 16, 2012 Comments (Attachment 3). Emphasizing the importance of maintaining a robust population of desert tortoises within the Ivanpah Valley, and of the habitat link between tortoise conservation areas in California and Nevada, FWS noted that at present the the desert tortoise population within the Ivanpah Valley is only tenuously connected to the Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit, and that of the four potential linkages remaining, the one that will be further degraded by Silver State South which lies between Silver State North and the Lucy Gray Mountains is the widest of those linkages and likely the most reliable for continued population connectivity. Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Accordingly, FWS opposed a project that would further constrict that linkage area below the two miles that currently are available between Silver State North and the Lucy Gray Mountains. FWS explained that habitat linkages must be wide enough to support a diverse age structure and sex ratio within the linkage. Id. at 2. Although noting that a single Tortoise uses a lifetime utilization area of approximately 1.4 miles wide, the Service emphasized that [m]ultiple lifetime utilization areas are necessary for desert tortoises to find mates, reproduce, and maintain populations during years of low habitat quality, periodic fire, and disease outbreaks. Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, FWS explained that in approving the Ivanpah Solar Energy Station the agency had found critical the fact that there would remain a suitable linkage between the Silver State Project and the Lucy Gray Mountains, id., and that it would undermine the premise for that Bi-Op to allow further degradation of that linkage. Thus, FWS urged that BLM protect a linkage corridor wide enough to accommodate multiple desert tortoise ranges, spanning up to several times the desert tortoise lifetime utilization area. Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at 5 (the linkage corridor should be wide enough to accommodate multiple desert tortoise home ranges, spanning up to several times the desert tortoise lifetime utilization areas at the narrowest point); see also Oct. 20, 2013 letter of Glenn Stewart, Ph.D. (Attachment 4) (reiterating that the corridor is inadequate because to be effective, a linkage corridor should represent the width of multiple life time home ranges). Despite these and the many other grave concerns about both the Silver State South and the Stateline solar projects, on September 30, 2013 the FWS issued a Bi-Op for both of these projects purporting to conclude that these projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Tortoise. As discussed below, the FWS reaches this conclusion by, inter alia, ignoring its own, and well-recognized experts, assessment of the minimum corridor necessary to protect vital habitat linkages; predicting the success of a translocation program that is likely to kill as many as half of the tortoises moved; and failing to analyze the overall impacts of the many solar projects and other habitat-destroying activities occurring in the species remaining habitat in the Ivanpah Valley. Moreover, the FWS and the Bureau of Land Management are violating both the species Recovery Plan (and hence Section 4 of the ESA) and ESA Section 7(a)(1) by failing to prepare and implement a program to adequately protect the remaining

Tortoise habitat in this area from the death-by-a-thousand cuts that is taking place as projects continue to be approved in the species dwindling remaining habitat. DISCUSSION A. The Stateline and Silver State South Projects Will Further Fragment Desert Tortoise Habitat In Violation of the ESA.

There is no dispute, and indeed the Bi-Op itself recognizes, that it is critical to the survival and recovery of the Tortoise that both demographic and genetic connectivity be maintained between the Tortoise populations in Ivanpah Valley and Eldorado Valley. Bi-Op at 51.1 Adequate corridors are essential to maintaining these connective features. As the FWS explains in the Bi-Op: The width of the corridor between different habitat area affects the functionality of linkages in that narrower linkages provide less certainty of desert tortoises persisting during years of low resource availability or surviving stochastic events; they may die or move to other areas. The converse is also true. Desert tortoises are more likely to persist in wider linkages because these areas support more habitat of different types, at varying elevations, and with varying weather patterns over time; desert tortoises can more easily recolonize areas where extirpations have occurred if the linkage is larger and source populations are closer. Id. at 70. Even without these two new projects, the Bi-Op recognizes that only three of these corridors are even possible in this area. One of these three, West of I-15, is almost severed at the present time due to various existing projects and barriers. The second, between Primm and Silver State North, is only 0.75 miles wide, already heavily disturbed by human activity, and likely no longer supports a reliable level of connectivity. Bi-Op at 54. This leaves the corridor east of Silver State North, between that solar project and the Lucy Gray Mountains where the Silver State South project is proposed. Bi-Op at 55. As the Bi-Op itself emphasizes, because [t]his linkage has the lowest level of existing habitat degradation and is wider (approximately 2 miles in the vicinity of the existing solar project), it provides the most reliable potential for continued population connectivity throughout the Ivanpah Valley. Id. (emphasis added); see also id at 38 (the connectivity of desert tortoise habitat is naturally constrained between the steep Lucy Gray Mountains and unvegetated Roach Lake. This constriction is further reduced by the Silver State North Project, the Walter M.
1

Demographically connected populations, particularly where population growth is impacted by immigration and emigration from the area, promote population stability. Bi-Op at 49. Genetic connectivity is the flow of genetic material between populations, where individuals make long-distance movements between populations, and is a function of the size of the populations and the frequency of this movement. Id.

Higgins Generating Station, an existing railroad, and the portion of Primm that lies east of the freeway.); id. at 69 (The linkage east of the proposed Silver State South Project has the lowest level of existing habitat degradation and likely provides the most reliable potential for continued population connectivity.). The Silver State South project threatens to destroy this final linkage. In particular, after Silver State south is constructed the linkage between the habitat north and south of the project would be 3.65 miles long and as narrow as 1.39 miles wide. Bi-Op at 69. Although, as noted in the FWSs own comments on the Silver State South Draft EIS, this may be sufficient to accommodate a single lifetime desert tortoise utilization area, multiple such areas are necessary to ensure the continued viability of the corridor. Attachment 3 at 2. Indeed, consistent with the FWSs prior comments which are inexplicably ignored in the Bi-Op the Bi-Op itself acknowledges that habitat patches for corridor-dwelling species like the desert tortoise should be large enough to accommodate multiple home ranges. Id. The Bi-Op further explains that the reason such a wide corridor is necessary is that strongly territorial species such as the tortoise require a minimum corridor width that is substantially larger than the width of a home range because, otherwise, in a narrow corridor, an occupied home range that spans the corridor could impede movement by other individuals through the corridor. Id. However, despite this summary of the best available science concerning the minimum habitat corridor necessary for the Tortoise, and the FWSs conclusion in its earlier comments, the Bi-Op goes on to state, in an utter non-sequitur, that, although desert tortoises are territorial and will fight among themselves, their territories also frequently overlap. Id. On the basis of that unremarkable fact i.e., that although territorial, Tortoises nonetheless come may come into contact with each other the agency purports to conclude that for Silver State South, although the width of the remaining corridor would be narrower than optimal, territorial desert tortoises are unlikely to block the movement of other desert tortoises through the corridor. Id. The BiOp cites no scientific studies, analyses by Tortoise experts, or anything else to support this assertion. The conclusion that a corridor may be reduced to (at most) a single Tortoise home range size not only flies in the face of the best available science and the agencys own prior (and here ignored) views, it simply makes no sense. The minimum required corridor discussed in the agencys prior comments (and by other experts) is not some kind of general requirement for territorial species, subject to an exemption for territorial species whose territories also frequently overlap. Rather, taking into account the behavioral patterns of the Tortoise, the FWS explained in its earlier comments relying on well-regarded scientific sources that tortoises require a corridor wide enough to accommodate multiple home ranges. Thus, the agency has certainly not engaged in reasoned decision-making, let alone made a decision grounded in sound scientific principles, in approving the functional destruction of this one remaining corridor by

allowing it to be reduced to only one home range on the grounds that Tortoise territories overlap.2 Indeed, while the Bi-Op appears to suggest that such an extremely narrow remaining corridor could be adequate, even the Bi-Op seems to be at war with itself on this issue, concluding that: desert tortoises occupying this narrow linkage area, which would also continue to be affected by the anthropogenic effects occurring in these areas . . . may be more susceptible to local extirpation than individuals that reside in a larger area of habitat. With the overall number of desert tortoises in the area reduced because of [a] stochastic event, individuals may be less likely to find mates, reproduce, and recolonize the linkage areas, particularly if desert tortoises in these areas are subject to ongoing causes of mortality. Bi-Op at 70 (emphasis added); see also Murray, et al. at 11 (land and wildlife managers should think about corridors between conservation areas that are large enough for resident tortoises to persist and to continue to interact with their neighbors within and outside broad habitat linkages, rather than expect that a more narrow band of habitat will allow an individual tortoise to move through it to the other side, breed with a tortoise on that side) (emphasis added). It also warrants emphasizing in this regard that part of the planned minimization for the project is to translocate approximately 100 large Tortoises into this area east of the project. BiOp at 16. This of course makes it even more vital that this area contain sufficient suitable habitat. Indeed, it poses a double threat to the species to not only leave an insufficient habitat corridor, but to translocate tortoises in the project site to that specific area. The translocation of such a large number of adult Tortoises into the remaining habitat east of the project site will also lead to increased social stress, aggression and displacement of Tortoises due to their territorial nature, as noted by FWS in the Bi-Op. On this basis alone the FWS must reconsider its approval of the Silver State South project. The Bi-Ops analysis of habitat fragmentation as it relates to the Stateline Project, where the habitat linkage will be reduced to less than a mile in some areas, and to less than 1.4 miles in others, is similarly flawed. Bi-Op at 71-72. The FWS notes that due to other projects the population in this area already faces significant threats. Id. The Bi-Op further recognizes that the Stateline project is likely to promote or exacerbate these effects by reducing the area available to this population and introducing additional mortality sources that may reduce population recruitment or create demographic imbalances, and will further fragment the small See also, e.g. Murray et al., Conserving Population Linkage for the Mojave Desert Tortoise, 8 Herp. Cons. And Biology 1, 11 (Apr. 30, 2013) (Attachment 5) (reiterating that minimum widths for corridor dwellers such as the Mojave Desert Tortoise should be substantially larger than a home range diameter and that while questions will be asked about what is the minimum width for a particular desert tortoise linkage, this is analogous to asking an engineer, what are the fewest number of rivets that might keep this wing on the airplane?; rather, a more appropriate question for conservation is what is the narrowest width that is not likely to be regretted after the adjacent area is converted to human use?). 9
2

population west of Interstate 15 by constraining, to a limited degree, connectivity between populations east and west of the facility. Bi-Op at 71. However, in the face of all these dire conclusions, the FWS summarily dismisses concerns with habitat linkages in this area as follows: To summarize, the population west of Interstate 15 is nearly isolated from the remainder of desert tortoises in Ivanpah Valley and therefore is more vulnerable to extirpation and genetic deterioration because of existing barriers that greatly reduce the potential for movement. The construction of the Stateline Solar Project would further inhibit, to a limited degree, connectivity in this portion of the valley. Given the existing extensive loss of habitat in this portion of the valley, the overall decrease in the amount of suitable habitat that would result from the proposed action is likely more detrimental to desert tortoises in this area than the reduced connectivity. Bi-Op at 72 (emphasis added). In other words, because the Tortoise habitat near Stateline is already so degraded, and because the Stateline projects most serious impacts will be the further loss of habitat there, there is no obstacle to leaving a habitat linkage corridor that is well below even what the FWS for the first time in this Bi-Op states is the minimum acceptable 1.4 miles. Again, this approach runs afoul of both reasoned decision-making and sound science. The Services analysis of the impacts that these deficient habitat linkages may have on the species prospects for recovery is also fundamentally flawed. Bi-Op at 79-81. After reiterating how critical it is to maintain connectivity between habitat areas, and how connectivity in the area is currently constrained even without these new projects, the Service purports to conclude that these projects will not further impair recovery. Id. As regards Stateline, the FWS relies on the same flawed rationale previously mentioned i.e., that while the project will further reduce connectivity, the existing development in this area has already rendered this habitat largely isolated, and thus the new project is not likely to measurably effect connectivity. Bi-Op at 79. As for Silver State South, the Bi-Op reiterates how important this area is for habitat connectivity, and recognizes not only that the project is likely to reduce connectivity, but that edge effects may reduce the effective connectivity to less than the measured distance between the project site and Luce Gray Mountains. Bi-Op at 79. Accordingly, the Bi-Op acknowledges, as it must, that the project is likely to impede recovery of the desert tortoise, at least temporarily. Id. at 80. Nonetheless, over the long-term, the Service purports to conclude that recovery will not be impaired because a USGS study will be investigating genetic changes in the species, and will assess whether changes in demographic and genetic stability were related to the proposed solar projects. Bi-Op at 80. However, while the USGS may be able to detect these changes, there are two fundamental problems with this approach to assessing species recovery prospects. First, it is impossible to discern how, even assuming the USGS monitoring program will successfully detect these kind of changes, that agency will be able to assess the degree to which those changes are due to these projects as distinguished from other factors. Indeed, since it is inevitable that, in such a circumstance, the companies will be able to point to other factors and, in particular, 10

environmental factors such as climate change as playing some role in the species continued decline, it is entirely meaningless for the Service to declare that if the research reveals new information with regard to the effects of the Silver State South or Stateline Solar Projects on connectivity, the Service will insist on reopening consultation and determine an appropriate course of action. Bi-Op at 80. Second, and more fundamentally, this approach eviscerates the entire jeopardy analysis process, which must meaningfully consider the adverse impacts of a project on species recovery. National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS, 524 F.3d 917, 933 (9th Cir. 2008) (jeopardy analysis [must] adequately consider the proposed action's impacts on the listed species' chances of recovery). The Service purports to resolve the acknowledged short-term harm on the species recovery by claiming that it has arranged for a study of how that harm will play itself out in the long-term, and will take appropriate action if things continue in a downward trend without even hinting at what that appropriate action might entail. However, since the monitoring itself will not improve the compromised connectivity caused by the project, and the Bi-Op fails to provide any clue as to what might be done to address a corridor that has been irretrievably impaired by a massive solar project, it could hardly be clearer that there is nothing more than speculation and surmise behind the Services assumption that that the long-term adverse impacts of the project on the Tortoises survival and recovery will be adequately monitored and ameliorated. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 156 (2008). And speculation and surmise is precisely what the Supreme Court has said the FWS may not base a Bi-Op on, particularly where, as here, the best available science points in the opposite direction from the Services Pollyannish prediction. Id. Indeed, the FWSs determination to roll the dice with the Tortoises fate and hope for the best also contravenes the most fundamental premises underlying section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. In adopting that provision, Congress has spoken in the plainest of words, making it abundantly clear that the balance has been struck in favor of affording endangered species the highest of priorities, thereby adopting a policy which it described as institutionalized caution. Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376, 1383 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978)); Washington Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1035 (9th Cir. 2005) (Placing the burden on the acting agency to prove the action is non-jeopardizing is consistent with the purpose of the ESA and what we have termed its institutionalized caution mandate). Plainly, the high-risk approach adopted by the Service here is the very antithesis of the institutionalized caution mandate embodied in section 7. Id. In short, the Service has entirely failed to provide a reasoned, legally supportable explanation concerning whether the projects will impair the species recovery and contribute to its long-term extinction. See also Bi-Op at 80 (claiming that the remaining corridor and increased management have the potential to increase the density of desert tortoises in the region to a degree that may mitigate the loss of habitat; the monitoring to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey should detect changes in demographic and genetic stability; and that the long generation time of desert tortoises provides the Bureau an opportunity to implement additional management measures, if needed).3
3

To the extent the Services conclusions rely on the Ironwood Consulting report Desert Tortoise Connectivity Assessment Within Ivanpah Valley (2013), another major concern and 11

Finally, the Services effort to use the fact that the Tortoise is long-lived and thus that the long-term monitoring study will detect problems before it is too late as a rationale to allow these projects to go forward turns the ESA on its head. Indeed, elsewhere in the Bi-Op the Service acknowledges that [t]he species low reproductive rate, the extended time required for young animals to reach breeding age, and the multitude of threats that continue to confront desert tortoises combine to render its recovery a substantial challenge. Bi-Op at 32. Thus, its long life suggests extra caution in approving projects in its range, not extra license to approve those projects and discern many decades later whether they have jeopardized the species continued survival and recovery. See, e.g. Murray et al. at 12 (In areas proposed for essentially permanent habitat conversion, such as by large-scale development, there is the risk that critical linkages will be severed before they are protected (Morrison and Reynolds 2006). For species with long generation times like the Mojave Desert Tortoise, this risk is compounded by the fact that we are not likely to detect a problem with a population until well after we have reduced the habitat below its extinction threshold.). Indeed, the FWS acknowledges that although the most apparent threats to the desert tortoise are those that result in mortality and permanent habitat loss across large areas, such as urbanization and large-scale renewable energy projects, and those that fragment and degrade habitats, the Service remains unable to quantify how threats affect desert tortoise populations. Bi-Op at 25 (emphasis added). Once again, especially in the face of this uncertainty the Service should not be approving even more such wide-scale habitat destruction and degradation. E.g. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 697, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1979) (mandating that agencies implement the ESA by giving the benefit of the doubt to the species). At minimum, however, the agencys conclusion that the projects will not jeopardize the species which was premised on the adequacy of these remaining habitat corridors is fundamentally flawed. See Bi-Op at 85 (To summarize, we concluded that the proposed actions are not likely to appreciably diminish reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the desert tortoise in the action area, or to appreciably impede long-term recovery of the desert tortoise. Integral to that conclusion is our expectation that the reduction in the width of habitat east of the Silver State South Project is either unlikely to degrade demographic or genetic stability in Ivanpah Valley or that we will be able to detect degradation of those values and implement remedial actions, if necessary.).4

inconsistency with section 7s best available science requirement is the inherent conflict-ofinterest in having the project applicants own consultant prepare a biological report that the FWS relies on in lieu of the agencys own prior determination on the need for multiple home ranges in a corridor. By skirting the serious issues concerning the impact of the project on the corridor, the BiOp also avoids confronting whether the project will, as a practical matter, result in the . . . adverse modification of critical habitat for the tortoise. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). Indeed, because the proposed actions would generally not occur within the boundaries of critical habitat, the Bi-Op simply doe[s] not address critical habitat. Bi-Op at 2. However, by allowing a vital corridor that connects with critical habitat to be effectively severed as a biological matter, the project surely is impairing the value of the tortoises formally designated critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Consequently, FWS and BLM have compounded their violations of section 7(a)(2) by also failing scrutinize how and the extent to 12
4

B.

The Services Decision to Approve the Projects Based on a Fundamentally Flawed Translocation Program Violates Section 7s Best Available Science Standard.

A principal minimization strategy proposed in the Bi-Op is to translocate Tortoises located on site. Bi-Op at 14-20. The Bi-Op estimates there are as many as approximately 200 large Tortoises on the project sites. Bi-Op at 47. The plan thus assumes that as many as 200 Tortoises will be relocated (and as noted above, many will be moved to an area with an insufficient habitat corridor). Although the Service authorizes the incidental take of two Tortoises during translocation, the agency assumes the Tortoises will survive once they arrive at their new location, and thus concludes that post-translocation survival rates will not significantly differ from that of animals that have not been translocated. Bi-Op at 59 (emphasis added). This conclusion is also fundamentally at odds with the best available science, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), concerning the impacts of Tortoise translocation. Indeed, in commenting on the draft EIS for Silver State South FWS itself stated in another comment entirely ignored in the Bi-Op that the agency does not support translocation as a proven minimization measure for development projects. Attachment 3 at 3 (emphasis added); see also id. (translocation of desert tortoises could result in considerable effects to both translocated individuals and individuals that are resident to any identified translocation site). The FWS was right the first time. Thus, for example, when Tortoises were translocated in the Fort Irwin Translocation Area, Dr. Kristin Berry, a leading Tortoise expert who has studied the species for many years, found that within a few years 49% of the translocated tortoises were dead and an additional 23 were missing.5 Not surprisingly, Dr. Berry therefore has expressed serious concerns with these translocation efforts. Id. Even more recently, as discussed in the Bi-Op, when biologists translocated approximately 150 tortoises to make way for a solar project on the Moapa Indian Reservation, more than 10 of them died from predation and heat exhaustion within a few months following the translocation. Bi-Op at 56. These experiences and the Services own prior conclusions are fundamentally at odds with the Services unexplained assurance in the Bi-Op that the 200 Tortoises to be translocated to make way for these two projects are no more likely to die in their new homes than where they are right now. Bi-Op at 59.

which impacts on the corridor will adversely modify critical habitat by cutting off the ability of tortoises to effectively make use of that habitat.
5

Dr. Berry is a research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, and has published more than 50 papers and reports based on her intensive studies of Tortoises over the past thirty years. See Statement of Dr. Kristin Berry, Transcript of Aug. 25, 2010 Evidentiary Hearing before the California Energy Commission; see also id. at 79 (discussing results of translocation efforts) (Attachment 6 (excerpts)); see also Progress Report for 2009: Health Status of Translocated Desert Tortoises (Attachment 7) (discussing death of translocated tortoises). 13

C.

The Bi-Op Violates the ESA by Failing to Address all of The Tortoise Take and Habitat Destruction Already Permitted in this Area.

The ESA regulations require that a Bi-Op detail the environmental baseline, which included the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, [and] the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation. 50 C.F.R. 402.02; Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2001). In determining whether the project under consideration may jeopardize the species, the Service must consider the projects impacts in conjunction with that baseline. Id. The Bi-Op here fails this requirement for two reasons. First, although the Bi-Op lists numerous other consultations that have occurred, it does not even set forth the extent of the take that has already been authorized. Thus, for example, in another recent large-scale solar project, the Brightsource Ivanpah Project, the FWS found that the project will result in the take of numerous tortoises, and, in particular, authorized the take by of up to 1136 Tortoises. See June 10, 2011 Ivanpah Bi-Op at 87. However, while the present Bi-Op mentions the Ivanpah project, noting in particular that in approving the project the Service had expressed concern that this solar facility would impede connectivity within this portion of the Ivanpah Valley, Bi-Op at 37, the FWS fails to disclose the amount of take authorized there. So too with all the other BiOps discussed in the environmental baseline section. Bi-Op at 34-39. This approach of ignoring the total amount of take of the species that has been authorized violates the ESA. Moreover, although the Bi-Op claims that the jeopardy conclusion took into account all of the other projects fragmenting Tortoise habitat, Bi-Op at 85, no such analysis can be found. This is not surprising, since, as noted, the Bi-Op does not even add up all the take that has previously been authorized, let alone consider that level of take in conjunction with the additional take to occur as a result of these projects. However, absent such an analysis of the overall impacts to the Tortoises prospects for survival and recovery of both the past and to-be approved projects in the species habitat, the FWS has not fulfilled its core obligation to determine whether these projects threaten to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. D. FWS and BLM are Violating the Recovery Plan and ESA Sections 4 and 7(a)(1) by Continuing to Approve Projects on a Piecemeal Basis Without a Comprehensive Plan for the Extent to Which These Projects may Harm Desert Tortoise Habitat.

When the Recovery Plan was issued, FWS explained that a cumulative impacts assessment concerning solar projects should be conducted and appropriate areas and mitigation measures for this type of activity should be identified. Recovery Plan at 68. Indeed, the Plan provided that the Service would: soon add a renewable energy chapter to the living Plan that will act as a blueprint to allow the Service and our partners to comprehensively address renewable energy development and its relationship to desert tortoise recovery. This supplemental chapter will focus on renewable energy in a manner that could not have been envisioned when Plan revision began. The supplemental renewable energy chapter will make clear what 14

recovery implementation will look like in light of renewable energy development and will provide specific recommendations to ensure recovery and continued habitat connectivity in light of such development. Recovery Plan at (ii)-(iii) (Attachment 1). In addition, one of the Plans specific recovery action is to: [d]etermine the importance of corridors and physical barriers to desert tortoise distribution and gene flow [in order to] allow population models to be made spatially explicit relative to current land management (e.g., population and habitat fragmentation due to roads, urbanization, and energy development) and potential distributional shifts resulting from climate change. Recovery Plan at 84 (Id.) Despite this recognized need for a comprehensive plan to address these projects and their degradation and destruction of Tortoise habitat, no such analysis has been completed. Nonetheless, the Service and BLM are authorizing massive solar (and other highly destructive) projects to fragment, degrade, and ultimately destroy the habitat that the species needs both to survive and, ultimately, recover. As noted previously, in addition to the obligation to avoid jeopardizing species under section 7(a)(2), section 7(a) of the ESA also imposes an obligation on all federal agencies, in consultation with the FWS, to carry[] out programs for the conservation of listed species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1); see also Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Dept of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1416-17 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that federal agencies have affirmative obligations to conserve under [S]ection 7(a)(1)). Conserve is defined by the Act to mean recovery, i.e., the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1). Especially where, as here, FWSs formal Recovery Plan for the tortoise declares the need for a comprehensive plan to reconcile the development of large-scale renewable energy projects with tortoise survival and recovery, and yet BLM and the Service are nevertheless authorizing highly destructive projects in the absence of such a plan, the agencies are also in violation of section 7(a)(1) of the Act. By the same token, the Service is certainly not implement[ing] its own Recovery Plan for the tortoise by proceeding in this manner, and hence is also in violation of section 4(f) of the Act. 16 U.S.C. 1533(f)(1) (providing that the Service shall . . . implement plans for the survival and recovery of listed species).

15

CONC CLUSION We W would be happy to discuss with you y any of th he issues rais sed in this le etter. Howev ver, unless the agencies commit c that they t will not t rely upon t the legally fl lawed Bi-Op p and will ac ct promptly y rectify the ESA E violatio ons set forth h in this letter r, our clients s intend to se eek appropri iate remedies s to insure th he protection n of the deser rt tortoise an nd its habitat t as well as o other species s that will be ad dversely affe ected by these ill-concei ived projects s. ely, Sincere

Howard M. Crystal Eric R. G Glitzenstein cc: David Co ottingham, FWS F Ren Loho oefener, FW WS Ray Brad dy, BLM Jim Kenn na, CA BLM M Amy Lue eders, NV BLM B

16

November 6, 2013 Notice of Violations of the ESA

ATTACHMENT 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise
(Gopherus agassizii)

Dennis Caldwell

Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)

Region 8, Pacific Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California

Approved :

Date:

~ ( gOI (
(

Preamble to the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan Revision The publication of the Final Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan Revision (Plan) is an exciting accomplishment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and an important milestone in recovery planning for this species. It represents many years of strategic thinking, productive collaboration, and careful consideration of the concerns of stakeholders. During this time, the Services Desert Tortoise Recovery Office has provided sound guidance and leadership over efforts to revise the Plan through both internal and external dialogue. This included the incorporation of information and feedback from: The Desert Tortoise Science Advisory Committee Four planning workshops in California and Nevada in Winter and Spring 2007 Two open houses in California and Nevada in Fall 2007 Informal internal and stakeholder reviews of the draft plan revision in 2007 Formal public comments collected following the publication of the draft plan revision in 2008 Formal peer review comment in 2008 Internal review from the Services Southwest and Mountain-Prairie Regions in 2010

The result is a high-quality blueprint for the recovery of the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. The many individuals involved in this effort, both those providing input and those responding to input, deserve thanks and praise for a job well-done. Development of the plan has been a dynamic process that has evolved over time. And because land use change and desert tortoise recovery implementation will continue to evolve, the Final Plan is being published as a living document which will similarly evolve in the future. For example, when Plan revision began we did not anticipate the extent to which the landscape of desert ecosystems in the Pacific Southwest might become modified as a result of the nations renewable energy priorities (since 2009, an emphasis on renewable energy has resulted in a large increase in the number of proposed utility-scale projects within the range of the desert tortoise in California). This relatively new emphasis is the result of Presidential, Congressional, and Secretarial priorities. The President has placed a priority on investing in renewable energy in order to put America back in the lead of the global clean energy economy, create millions of jobs over time, and reduce our dependence on foreign fuel. The Presidents New Energy for America Plan sets a target of ensuring that10 percent of electricity will be generated from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent of electricity will be generated from renewable sources by 2025. Section 211, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides that the Secretary of the Interior should, within 10 years of enactment of the Act, "seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy projects located on the public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity". On February 14, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which included more than $80 billion to generate renewable energy while creating new, sustainable jobs. And on March 11, 2009, Secretary Salazar issued his first i

Secretarial Order making the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy a top priority for the department. In the Plan, renewable energy development is discussed in a number of locations. Discussions under Reasons for Listing and Continuing Threats, Factor A and Appendix A, Section A8 identify the threat of large-scale energy development and the potential impacts to desert tortoises and their habitat. Such impacts could be realized through habitat fragmentation, isolation of desert tortoise conservation areas, and the subsequent possibility of restricted gene flow between these areas. Implementation of a number of the recommended Recovery Actions, as articulated throughout the Plan, would make progress towards reducing threats associated with energy development: Recovery Action 2.1, Conserve intact desert tortoise habitat - Recommends that solar project facilities be sited outside Desert Wildlife Management Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, as well as the development of a cumulative impacts assessment to identify mitigation measures for this type of activity. Recovery Action 2.9, Secure lands/habitat for conservation - Recommends conserving sensitive areas that would connect functional habitat or improve management capability of surrounding areas, such as inholdings within tortoise conservation areas that may be open to renewable energy development. Recovery Action 2.11, Connect functional habitat - Recommends connecting blocks of desert tortoise habitat, such as tortoise conservation areas, in order to maintain gene flow between populations. Recovery Action 4.3, Track changes in the quantity and quality of desert tortoise habitat - Recommends quantifying the loss or restoration of habitat as it relates to potential energy and other projects. Recovery Action 5.5, Determine the importance of corridors and physical barriers to desert tortoise distribution and gene flow - This action, in part, would determine the effects of corridors and barriers like energy development, on desert tortoise movement and recovery.

Similarly, Strategic Element 1 in the Plans Recovery Strategy specifies that activities of implementation teams at the local level will be coordinated with landscape and regional-level alternative-energy coordination efforts. Still, the plan does not provide a single, comprehensive strategy for addressing renewable energy. To more comprehensively address this threat, the Service will soon add a renewable energy chapter to the living Plan that will act as a blueprint to allow the Service and our partners to comprehensively address renewable energy development and its relationship to desert tortoise recovery. This supplemental chapter will focus on renewable energy in a manner that could not have been envisioned when Plan revision began. The supplemental renewable energy chapter will make clear what recovery implementation will look like in light of renewable energy development and will provide specific recommendations to ensure recovery and continued ii

habitat connectivity in light of such development. Given that, strategies for recovery implementation may be modified in the future. The chapter will reconcile recovery efforts with: Landscape level effects of renewable energy development on the desert tortoise. This includes identifying how such development may contribute to tortoise habitat loss and/or fragmentation. The role that desert tortoise translocation may play in mitigating potential impacts to desert tortoises as a result of renewable energy development. Other ongoing conservation strategies that have run parallel to Plan development (for example, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, and the Bureau of Land Managements Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement) to ensure that desert tortoise recovery moves forward in a well-coordinated manner.

In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, we are firmly committed to ensuring that responsible renewable energy development moves forward in a manner that concurrently addresses both the recovery concerns of desert tortoises and the broader conservation of desert ecosystems in the Pacific Southwest.

Ren Lohoefener Regional Director Pacific Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

iii

The most complete account of the biology, ecology, and natural history of a population of desert tortoises is that of Woodbury and Hardy (1948), wherein details regarding reproduction, growth and development, longevity, food habits, behavior, movement patterns, and general adaptations to desert conditions are provided for a population on the Beaver Dam Slope of Utah. These characteristics of tortoises do vary with changes in habitat and environment, and further information on the range, biology, and ecology of the desert tortoise is available in Bury (1982), Bury and Germano (1994), Ernst and Lovich (2009), Van Devender (2002c), and collected papers in Chelonian Conservation and Biology (2002, Vol. 4, No. 2), Herpetological Monographs (1994, No. 8), and the Desert Tortoise Council Proceedings. E. HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS The desert tortoise occurs in the broadest latitudinal range, climatic regimes, habitats, and biotic regions of any North American tortoise species (Auffenberg and Franz 1978; Bury 1982; Patterson 1982; Bury et al. 1994; Germano 1994). The species occupies a variety of habitats from flats and slopes typically characterized by creosote bush scrub dominated by Larrea tridentata (creosote bush) and Ambrosia dumosa (white bursage) at lower elevations to rocky slopes in blackbrush scrub and juniper woodland ecotones (transition zone) at higher elevations (Germano et al. 1994). Throughout most of the Mojave Desert, tortoises occur most commonly on gently sloping terrain with sandy-gravel soils and where there is sparse cover of low-growing shrubs, which allows establishment of herbaceous (non-woody) plants (Germano et al. 1994; USFWS 1994a). However, surveys at the Nevada Test Site revealed that tortoise sign (e.g., scat, burrows, tracks, shells) was more abundant on upper alluvial fans and low mountain slopes than on the valley bottom (Rautenstrauch and OFarrell 1998). Soils must be friable (easily crumbled) enough for digging burrows, but firm enough so that burrows do not collapse (USFWS 1994a). During the winter, tortoises will opportunistically use burrows of various lengths, deep caves, rock and caliche crevices, or overhangs for cover (Bury et al. 1994). Records of desert tortoises range from below sea level to an elevation of 2,225 meters (7,300 feet) (Luckenbach 1982). Typical habitat for the desert tortoise in the Mojave Desert has been characterized as creosote bush scrub below 1,677 meters (5,500 feet) in which precipitation ranges from 5 to 20 centimeters (2 to 8 inches), where a diversity of perennial plants is relatively high, and production of ephemerals is high (Luckenbach 1982; Turner 1982; Turner and Brown 1982; Bury et al. 1994; Germano et al. 1994). The Mojave Desert is relatively rich in winter annuals, which serve as an important food source for the desert tortoise. Tortoises will also forage on perennial grasses, woody perennials, and cacti as well as non-native species such as Bromus rubens (red brome) and Erodium cicutarium (red-stem filaree). Ninety percent of the precipitation that facilitates germination of important forage species for desert tortoise occurs in winter and sometimes in the form of snow (Germano et al. 1994). Tortoises in the eastern Mojave Desert are more likely to be subjected to freezing winter temperatures and prolonged drought than tortoises in the Sonoran Desert and Sinaloan region where freezing temperatures are rare and rainfall is more predictable (Germano 1994).

11

The U.S. Geological Survey developed a habitat model for the desert tortoise north and west of the Colorado River using 16 environmental variables such as precipitation, geology, vegetation, and slope (Figure 1) (Nussear et al. 2009). The model is based on desert tortoise occurrence data from sources spanning more than 80 years, especially including data from the 2001 to 2005 range-wide monitoring surveys (USFWS 2006), using 3,753 tortoise presence points to develop the model and 938 points to test the model. The desert tortoises range, outside the listed Mojave population, extends into the Sonoran Desert, where tortoises occur in the lower Colorado River valley, Arizona uplands, plains of Sonora, and the central Gulf Coast; the species has not been documented in northeastern Baja California (Germano et al. 1994). As in the Mojave Desert, Larrea tridentata is a dominant species in areas occupied by tortoises, although this dominance is tempered by the relatively high abundance of several tree species (Turner and Brown 1982; Germano et al. 1994). In the Sonoran Desert, tortoises tend to inhabit bajadas (slope at the base of a mountain) and

Figure 1. Desert tortoise critical habitat overlaid on the U.S. Geological Survey habitat model (Nussear et al. 2009).

12

steep, rocky slopes and are not common in the valleys (Germano 1994; Van Devender 2002a; Averill-Murray and Averill-Murray 2005). Desert tortoises are also found in the Sinaloan thornscrub, which is a transitional habitat between the Sonoran Desert and Sinaloan deciduous forest where the vegetation is dominated by drought-resistant shrubs and deciduous trees. The Sinaloan deciduous forests are differentiated from the thornscrub by taller plants with larger leaves and fewer thorny or succulent species (Germano et al. 1994; Fritts and Jennings 1994). F. CRITICAL HABITAT Under section 3 of the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is defined as the specific areas supporting those physical and biological features that are essential for the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection (Box 1). The 1994 Recovery Plan identified general areas as proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas where recovery efforts for the desert tortoise would be focused (Brussard et al. 1994; USFWS 1994a; Box 1). Based on the draft recovery plan, we designated critical habitat in February 1994, encompassing over 2,428,114 hectares (6,000,000 acres) in portions of the Mojave and Colorado deserts (Figure 1; Table 2). This designation includes primarily Federal lands in southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, southern Nevada, and southern California (USFWS 1994b). Primary constituent elements for the desert tortoise are those physical and biological attributes that are necessary for the long-term survival of the species. These elements were identified as sufficient space to support viable populations within each of the six recovery units and to provide for movement, dispersal, and gene flow; sufficient quantity and quality of forage species and the proper soil conditions to provide for the growth of such species; suitable substrates for burrowing, nesting, and overwintering; burrows, caliche (hard layer of subsoil typically containing calcium carbonate) caves, and other shelter sites; sufficient vegetation for shelter from temperature extremes and predators; and habitat protected from disturbance and human-caused mortality (USFWS 1994b).

Table 2. Critical habitat by state and land management in hectares (1 hectare=2.47 acres); data from the Mojave Desert Ecosystem Program. State Arizona California Nevada Utah Management Total Bureau of Land Management 116,835 1,092,675 400,243 38,041 1,647,794 National Park Service 17,968 362,202 42,088 422,258 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 9,308 9,308 Bureau of Reclamation 1,350 1,350 Department of Defense 186,564 186,564 Department of Energy 202 202 Tribal Land 971 971 State Land 2,307 33,590 9,106 45,003 Private Land 1,012 243,221 41,279 4,006 289,518 138,122 1,918,252 494,470 52,124 2,602,968 Total

13

Box 1. Glossary of terminology relating to desert tortoise habitat: Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA) - General areas recommended by the 1994 Recovery Plan within which recovery efforts for the desert tortoise would be concentrated. DWMAs had no specific legal boundaries in the 1994 Recovery Plan. The Bureau of Land Management formalized the general DWMAs from the 1994 Recovery Plan through its planning process and administers them as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (see below). Critical Habitat Specific, legally defined areas that are essential for the conservation of the desert tortoise, that support physical and biological features essential for desert tortoise survival, and that may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat for the desert tortoise was designated in 1994, largely based on proposed DWMAs in the draft Recovery Plan. Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Specific, legally defined, Bureau of Land Management designation where special management is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historical, cultural, scenic values, fish and wildlife, and natural resources (in this case, the desert tortoise) or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. Designated critical habitat and ACEC boundaries generally, but not always, coincide along legal boundaries.

G. REASONS FOR LISTING AND CONTINUING THREATS In determining whether to list, delist, or reclassify (change from endangered to threatened status, or vice versa) a taxon under the Endangered Species Act, we evaluate the role of five factors potentially affecting the species. These factors are: A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; C) disease or predation; D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Documented threats to the Mojave population of the desert tortoise were described in the final listing rule in 1990 as they pertain to the five listing factors (USFWS 1990) and in the 1994 Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a). The threats identified in the 1994 Recovery Plan, and that formed the basis for listing the tortoise as a threatened species (GAO 2002), continue to affect the species today. Extensive research shows that all of these individual threats directly kill or indirectly affect tortoises. Research has also clarified many mechanisms by which these threats act on tortoises. However, despite the clear demonstration that these threats impact individual tortoises, there are few data available to evaluate or quantify the effects of threats on desert tortoise populations (Boarman 2002). While current research results can lead to predictions about how local tortoise abundance should be affected by the presence of threats, quantitative estimates

14

of the magnitude of these threats, or of their relative importance, have not yet been developed. Thus, a particular threat or subset of threats with discernable solutions that could be targeted to the exclusion of other threats has not been identified for the desert tortoise. The assessment of the 1994 Recovery Plan emphasized the need for a greater appreciation of the implications of multiple, simultaneous threats facing tortoise populations and a better understanding of the relative contribution of multiple threats on demographic factors (i.e., birth rate, survivorship, fecundity, and death rate; Tracy et al. 2004). The approach of focusing on individual threats may not have produced expected gains toward desert tortoise recovery since 1994 because multiple threats act simultaneously to suppress tortoise populations at any given location within the species range. In this revised recovery plan, we underscore the need to build on our understanding of individual threats, yet place new emphasis on understanding their multiple and synergistic effects (interacting so that the combined effect is greater than the sum of individual effects) due to the failure of simple threat models to inform us about tortoise abundance. The following narrative provides a brief overview of the threats to the desert tortoise and its habitat as categorized by the five listing factors. A more detailed discussion of these threats is contained in Appendix A. 1. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range (Factor A) Since the 1800s, portions of the desert southwest occupied by desert tortoises have been subject to a variety of impacts that cause habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, thereby threatening the long-term survival of the species (USFWS 1994a). Some of the most apparent threats are those that result in mortality and permanent habitat loss across large areas, such as urbanization, and those that fragment and degrade habitats, such as proliferation of roads and highways, off-highway vehicle activity, poor grazing management, and habitat invasion by nonnative invasive species (Berry et al. 1996; Avery 1997; Jennings 1997; Boarman 2002; Boarman and Sazaki 2006). Indirect impacts to desert tortoise populations and habitat are also known to occur in areas that interface with intense human activity (Berry and Burge 1984; Berry and Nicholson 1984b). Another threat that has come to the forefront is the increased frequency of wildfire due to the invasion of desert habitats by non-native plant species (USFWS 1994a; Brooks 1998). Changes in plant communities caused by non-native plants and recurrent fire can negatively affect the desert tortoise by altering habitat structure and species available as food plants (Brooks and Esque 2002). Off-highway vehicle activity, roads, livestock grazing, agricultural uses, and other activities contribute to the spread of non-native species (or the displacement of native species) and the direct loss and degradation of habitats (Brooks 1995; Avery 1998). For example, unmanaged livestock grazing, especially where plants are not adapted to large herbivorous mammals or where the non-native species are less palatable than the natives, can preferentially remove native vegetation, leaving non-native plants to grow under reduced competition (Wittenberg and Cock 2005:228). Landfills and other waste disposal facilities potentially affect desert tortoises and their habitat through fragmentation and permanent loss of habitat, spread of garbage, introduction of

15

toxic chemicals, increased road kill of tortoises on access roads, and increased predator populations (Boarman et al. 1995; Kristan and Boarman 2003). Military operations (e.g., construction and operation of bases, field maneuvers) have taken place in the Mojave Desert since 1859 and can affect tortoises and their habitats similarly to other large human settlements (i.e., illegal collection of tortoises, trash dumping, increased raven (Corvus corax) populations, domestic predators, off-highway vehicle use, increased exposure to disease, and increased mortality) (USFWS 1994a; Krzysik 1998; Boarman 2002). As of November 2010, six solar projects in California and one in Nevada were approved on public lands within the range of the desert tortoise, constituting 3,037.5 megawatts (MW) on 9,683 hectares (23,926 acres) and 430 MW on 3,173 hectares (7,840 acres), respectively. Three additional solar projects on private lands in California have been approved totaling 1,063 MW on 1,686 hectares (4,165 acres). Seven solar projects on public lands were still pending, totaling 1,450 MW on 4,314 hectares (10,659 acres) in California and 900 MW on 6,955 hectares (17,186 acres) in Nevada. Three wind projects within the range of the desert tortoise were also pending, totaling 536.5 MW on 11,775 hectares (29,096 acres) of public and private rights-ofway; one of the California projects is proposed within designated critical habitat. No applications have been submitted for solar or wind projects on public lands within the range of the Mojave population of the desert tortoise in Arizona or Utah. Dozens of project sites have been proposed, and the Bureau of Land Management has committed to excluding these projects from designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise and Desert Wildlife Management Areas. However, potential long-term effects of large-scale energy development fragmenting or isolating desert tortoise conservation areas and cutting off gene flow between these areas have not been evaluated. 2. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes (Factor B) Despite legal protection under Federal and State laws, deliberate maiming or killing of tortoises (previously referred to as vandalism) and collection of desert tortoises by humans for food or as pets were cited as potential threats to the species (USFWS 1994a). Data and anecdotal observations indicate that collection for personal or commercial purposes was significant in the past (USFWS 1994a). While illegal collection of desert tortoises still occurs and collection could possibly impact local populations, there is no quantitative estimate of the magnitude of this threat (Berry et al. 1996; Boarman 2002). Research projects may result in injury or loss of individuals. These activities may be permitted under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, when permitted. Terms and conditions to minimize injury and mortality of individuals are mandatory. 3. Disease or Predation (Factor C) To date the available evidence indicates that upper respiratory tract disease, as caused by the bacteria Mycoplasma agassizii and M. testudineum (Jacobson et al. 1991), is probably the most important infectious disease affecting desert tortoises. Less is known about other diseases that have been identified in the desert tortoise (e.g., herpesvirus, cutaneous dyskeratosis, shell necrosis, bacterial and fungal infections, and urolithiasis or bladder stones) (Jacobson et al. 1994;

16

Homer et al. 1998; Berry et al. 2002b; Origgi et al. 2002). There is evidence that any one disease may predispose an animal to other diseases (Christopher et al. 2003). However, it is not known whether this is a cause or effect. Additional research is needed to clarify the role of disease in desert tortoise population dynamics relative to other threats. The role of environmental contaminants in directly inducing toxicosis-related diseases (i.e., liver diseases) and increasing susceptibility to infectious diseases has recently been suggested as a significant source of mortality (Homer et al. 1994, 1996; Berry 1997; Boarman 2002; Christopher et al. 2003). Elevated mercury and arsenic levels have been associated with diseased tortoises in the wild (Jacobson et al. 1991; Homer et al. 1998; Seltzer and Berry 2005; Chaffee and Berry 2006). Necropsy and analyses of kidney, liver, and scute tissues suggested that tortoises from California with a variety of diseases (upper respiratory tract infection, urolithiasis, metabolic disease, and shell diseases) had statistically significantly higher levels of several potentially toxic elements as compared to healthy tortoises (Berry et al. 1997). Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes in the California deserts may expose tortoises to increased levels and possible consumption of toxic substances and affect populations on a localized level where these activities are concentrated (Boarman 2002). It has been postulated that elemental toxicity may compromise the immune system of desert tortoises or otherwise detrimentally affect physiological function, rendering them more susceptible to disease, but further investigation is needed. Desert tortoises, particularly hatchlings and juveniles, are preyed upon by several native species of mammals, reptiles, and birds. The common raven (Corvus corax) has been the most highly visible predator of small tortoises, while coyotes (Canis latrans) have been commonly implicated in deaths of adult tortoises. The population-level effects of these or other predators are unknown. Except for extreme predation events brought on by unusual circumstances, predation by native predators alone would not be expected to cause dramatic population declines. This reiterates the importance of combined and synergistic effects of threats. For example, predation pressure by ravens is increased through elevated raven populations as a result of resource subsidies associated with human activities. Ravens obtain food in the form of organic garbage from landfills and trash containers, water from sewage ponds and municipal areas, and nesting substrates on billboards, utility towers, bridges, and buildings (Boarman et al. 2006). Other avian predators of the desert tortoise include red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus), American kestrels (Falco sparvarius), burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), and greater roadrunners (Geococcyx californianus) (Boarman 1993). Coyotes, kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis), mountain lions (Felis concolor), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), and free-roaming dogs are some of the known mammalian predators (Bjurlin and Bissonette 2001; Boarman 2002; M. McDermott, Southern Nevada Environmental, Inc., pers. comm. 2006, K. Nagy, University of California-Los Angeles, pers. comm. 2006; Medica and Greger 2009). Invertebrate predators of eggs and hatchling tortoises include native fire ants (Nagy et al. 2007).

17

4. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (Factor D) The final listing rule acknowledged that all four states within the range of the Mojave population of the desert tortoise have laws in place to protect the species. In addition, a great deal of effort has been dedicated to planning by the various land management agencies whose jurisdictions include desert tortoise habitat. Many of the existing plans include language specific to protection of the species, such as limiting off-highway vehicle use and competitive/organized events, grazing, vegetation harvest, and collection of desert tortoises. However, the multiple-use mandates under which the agencies function require a complex balance between conservation and use of public lands, and management agencies frequently do not have sufficient funding to enforce their regulations. Also, state law in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah does not regulate habitat degradation, making mitigation of impacts to potentially unoccupied but suitable habitat difficult. Land exchanges and transfers may result in loss of desert tortoise habitat, increased fragmentation, and displacement of resident desert tortoises, because habitat that is exchanged out of Federal ownership into the private sector is at greater risk of urban development (Sievers et al. 1988; but see Conservation Efforts, Land Acquisitions and Habitat Conservation Plans, below). Energy and mineral development and extraction also pose a significant threat to desert tortoises through habitat loss and fragmentation (Luke et al. 1991; Lovich and Bainbridge 1999; LaRue and Dougherty 1999). For example, as of November 2010, the area of approved and pending solar and wind-energy applications on public lands in California exceeds 100,000 hectares (247,000 acres). 5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence (Factor E) Global climate change and drought are potentially important long-term considerations with respect to recovery of the desert tortoise. There is now sufficient evidence that recent climatic changes have affected a broad range of organisms with diverse geographical distributions (Walther et al. 2002). While little is known regarding specific direct effects of climate change on the desert tortoise or its habitat, predictions can be made about how global and regional precipitation regimes may be altered and about the consequences of these changes (Weltzin et al. 2003; Seager et al. 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested that increasingly reliable regional climate change projections are available as the result of improved modeling capabilities and advanced understanding of climate systems (Christensen et al. 2007). Twenty-one Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models were run to predict regional temperature and precipitation across the globe in 2080 through 2099 as changed from conditions that occurred between 1980 and 1999. Generally, predictions for the geographic range of the desert tortoises listed population suggest a 3.5 to 4.0 degree Celsius (6.3 to 7.2 degree Fahrenheit) increase in annual mean temperature, with the greatest increases occurring in summer (June-July-August mean up to 5 degrees Celsius [9 degrees Fahrenheit] increase) (Christensen et al. 2007). Precipitation will likely decrease by 5 to 15 percent annually within the range of the desert tortoise with winter precipitation decreasing up to 20 percent (Christensen et al. 2007). Because germination of the tortoises food plants is highly dependent on cool season rains, the forage

18

base could be reduced due to increasing temperatures and decreasing precipitation in winter. Smith et al. (2009) review various types of global change relative to expected effects in the Mojave Desert, such as elevated carbon dioxide and altered precipitation regimes facilitating invasive plant species, thereby increasing fire frequency. Effects of altered nitrogen dynamics on the Mojave Desert are less clear. For example, increased nitrogen deposition from dust in the vicinity of metropolitan areas could result in higher plant production, exacerbating the effects from carbon dioxide noted above (Smith et al. 2009). Alternatively, increased temperatures may release nitrogen gases from Mojave Desert soils, reducing fertility of those soils and the ability to support plant life (McCalley and Sparks 2009). Further predictions need to be developed specifically for the desert tortoise to help inform recovery efforts. Other activities that may impact the species include non-motorized recreation such as camping, hunting, target shooting, rock collecting, hiking, horseback riding, biking, and sightseeing. These activities bring with them threats associated with increased human presence, such as loss of habitat from development of recreational facilities, handling and disturbance of tortoises, increased road kill and deliberate maiming or killing of tortoises, increased raven predation, degradation of vegetation, and soil compaction (USFWS 1994a; Averill-Murray 2002). Desert habitats are also disturbed by construction and maintenance of linear utility corridors and ancillary facilities and to some degree by vandalism and harvest of vegetation for personal or economic purposes (Olson 1996; LaRue and Dougherty 1999). Another potential threat facing the desert tortoise is the unauthorized release or escape of pet tortoises to the wild. Captive releases have the potential to introduce disease into wild populations of desert tortoises (Johnson et al. 2006; Martel et al. 2009). Tomlinson and Hardenbrook (1993) reported that the highest prevalence of clinical signs of upper respiratory tract disease was observed in tortoises removed from areas where previous releases of captive animals had occurred. Release or escape of captive tortoises genetically different from the resident population could theoretically decrease fitness (Tallmon et al. 2004). H. CONSERVATION EFFORTS While precise correlations between threats and desert tortoise populations have not been clearly shown, a great deal of effort has been put forth by research scientists and land managers to actively conserve the species. For instance, substantive datasets pertaining to disease, nonnative invasive plant species, and fire have been assembled over the years that will be used to inform decisions relative to recovery of the desert tortoise and its habitats. On-the-ground conservation actions such as land acquisitions, installing protective fencing, retiring grazing allotments, limiting off-highway vehicle access, and implementing restoration projects have been based on what we believe are threats to the desert tortoise at this time (see GAO 2002). The following are examples of existing guidance and strategies to further resource conservation.

19

1. Wildlife Conservation Strategies In 2000, Congress enacted the State Wildlife Grants Program to fund activities that benefit species of concern and their habitats. To receive funding under this program, State wildlife agencies needed to complete a Fish and Wildlife Service-approved wildlife action plan (or comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy). All four states where the Mojave population of the desert tortoise occurs are currently implementing these strategies to guide species and habitat management through 2015 (Gorrell et al. 2005; Abele et al. 2006; Arizona Game and Fish Department 2006; Bunn et al. 2006). Each state has identified conservation priorities and recommendations that are both species- and habitat-specific. Some of these actions include, but are not limited to, the following: improve stewardship on federally managed lands to protect wildlife diversity; work cooperatively with landowners/permittees by providing financial and technical assistance (through incentive programs) for conservation projects; work with city and county planners to incorporate wildlife values in urban/rural development plans; promote design and construction of overpasses, underpasses, or culverts to increase permeability of existing or planned roads; identify and protect key wildlife corridors for landscape connectivity; reduce off-highway vehicle damage to wildlife habitats; encourage revegetation and restoration of existing unauthorized roads and trails; improve efforts and partnerships for controlling existing occurrences of invasive species and prevent new introductions; rehabilitate burned and disturbed areas with native plants; pursue projects to limit spread of disease to sensitive wildlife populations; use fencing and/or increased law enforcement presence to reduce unauthorized use and access to sensitive habitats; and, implement a statistically robust range-wide monitoring program and adaptive management framework that captures population trends and impacts to the species.

2. Federal Land Management Plans Land use management plans provide guidance and establish a mechanism by which Federal agencies implement actions on lands under their purview. Throughout the range of the desert tortoise, multiple Federal agencies are involved in the long-term management and conservation of the species as part of their respective missions. These include the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy. In addition to Federal land use plans, counties and local jurisdictions draft general plans to guide their activities. Within the range of the desert tortoise, the following programmatic-level documents are currently in place or in preparation. Many of the respective plans include language specific to the protection and conservation of natural resources including desert tortoises and their habitats. 20

These are often supplemented by more specific guiding documents, such as habitat management plans or wilderness management plans: Bureau of Land Management: Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan Revision, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Management Plan (jointly managed with the National Park Service), and Vermilion Cliffs National Monument Management Plan; Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (BLM and National Park Service [NPS] 2007) California Desert Conservation Plan of 1980 as amended (BLM 1999a) Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan (BLM 2002a) Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (BLM 2002b) West Mojave Plan (BLM et al. 2005) Tonopah Resource Management Plan (BLM 1997) Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (BLM 1998a) Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 2001) Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 2006) Nevada Test and Training Range Resource Management Plan (BLM 2004) Caliente Management Framework Plan (BLM 2000) St. George Resource Management Plan (BLM 1999b) Fish and Wildlife Service: Desert National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2009b) National Park Service: Joshua Tree National Park General Management Plan, as amended (NPS 2000a) Death Valley National Park General Management Plan (NPS 2002a) Mojave National Preserve General Management Plan (NPS 2002b) Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Arizona and California, Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2001-2005 (NPS 2000b) U.S. Forest Service: General Management Plan for the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, An Amendment to the Land and Resource Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service 1996) Department of Defense: Draft Nellis AFB and Nevada Test and Training Range Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (U.S. Air Force 2007) Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Fiscal Years 2007-2011 (U.S. Marine Corps 2007) National Training Center at Fort Irwin Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (U.S. Army 2006) Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (Tierra Data, Inc. 2005)

21

Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake and BLM 2004) Edwards Air Force Base Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (U.S. Air Force 2001) Yuma Training Range Complex, Arizona and California (U.S. Navy 2001) Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan (U.S. Department of Energy 1998)

Among the most important recovery actions implemented pursuant to the 1994 Recovery Plan has been formalizing Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs; Box 1) through Federal land use planning processes (Figure 2). Particularly on Bureau of Land Management lands, DWMAs are administered and designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC; Box 1; BLM 1998a, 1999b, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, BLM et al. 2005, BLM and NPS 2007). These ACECs define specific management areas based on the general recommendations for DWMAs in the 1994 Recovery Plan. Boundaries of the ACECs were refined slightly from the critical habitat designation based on various management and biological considerations. The Bureau of Land Management DWMAs/ACECs, together with National Park Service lands, designated wilderness areas, other lands allocated for resource conservation, as well as restrictedaccess military lands provide an extensive network of habitats that are managed either directly or indirectly (e.g., wilderness areas outside desert tortoise ACECs) for desert tortoise conservation (Figures 2 and 3). A recent example of landscape-scale conservation was the Bureau of Land Managements designation of ACECs and wildlife habitat areas under the Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan Revision and Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Management Plan (BLM and NPS 2007). On the Arizona Strip, lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics were proposed on 87,100 hectares (215,345 acres) within the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument and on 14,120 hectares (34,900 acres) within the Arizona Strip field offices area of responsibility. Nearly 68,800 hectares (170,000 acres) are designated as ACECs on the Arizona Strip, which directly benefits the desert tortoise and its habitat. The Resource Management Plan contains the following goals: The Mojave population of desert tortoise would be recovered and delisted. There would be no net loss in the quality or quantity of desert tortoise habitat within the ACECs or wildlife habitat areas. Desert tortoise populations within the ACECs and DWMAs would be healthy and selfsustaining. Populations would be stable or increasing. Population declines would be halted. Desert tortoise populations outside of the ACECs and wildlife habitat areas would be healthy and stable. Declines in the wildlife habitat areas would be minimized to the extent possible through mitigation. Desert tortoise habitat would provide sufficient forage and cover attributes to support thriving populations of the species. Habitat connectivity would be maintained, providing sufficiently frequent contact between tortoises to maintain genetic diversity.

22

Figure 2. Desert tortoise conservation areas (see Box 2). DWMA = Desert Wildlife Management Area; ACEC = Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; DTCC = Desert Tortoise Conservation Center.

23

Figure 3. Additional land designations providing conservation benefits to the desert tortoise. Conservation areas for other species not shown (e.g., Mohave ground squirrel [Spermophilus mohavensis], Mimulus mohavensis [Mojave monkeyflower]) may also provide benefit to the desert tortoise.

Another example of landscape-level conservation is the withdrawal of locatable mineral entry within ACECs on the Southern Nevada District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2009). Locatable minerals are those that have been described as valuable mineral deposits and include metal ores such as gold, silver, copper, or lead, and certain industrial minerals such as gypsum, chemical-grade limestone, and diatomaceous earth. Uncommon varieties of mineral materials such as pumice, rock, and cinders also are regulated as locatable minerals. The BLM withdrew approximately 382,000 hectares (944,000 acres) of public lands from locatable mineral entry under the United States mining laws for a period of 20 years to protect desert tortoise habitat, archaeological and cultural resources, and special wildlife and riparian values on 24 ACECs. Four of these ACECs coincide with desert tortoise critical habitat (Piute/Eldorado, Coyote Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Gold Butte critical habitat units). This action was included

24

as one of the most important conservation actions in the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (BLM 1998a). All valid existing rights including, but not limited to, mining, recreation, and/or rights of way remain unaffected (BLM 2009). One of the most extensive land and resource management plans currently in place was developed for the 10,117,141-hectare (25,000,000-acre) California Desert Conservation Area. In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act to direct the management of the public lands of the United States. Under that law, the California Desert Conservation Area was established, with 4,856,228 hectares (12,000,000 acres) of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980 as amended provides guidance relative to the use of the public lands and resources of the California Desert Conservation Area, including economic, educational, scientific, and recreational uses, in a manner that enhances wherever possible, and does not diminish the environmental, cultural, and aesthetic values of the desert and its productivity. Under the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, all state and federally listed species and their habitats are to be managed so that the continued existence of each is not jeopardized. Consultation for federally listed species would be conducted as appropriate (BLM 1999a). The California Desert Conservation Area Plan was subsequently amended by regions that generally corresponded to the recovery units delineated in the 1994 Recovery Plan. The Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan (BLM 2002a), the West Mojave Plan (BLM et al. 2005), and the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (BLM 2002b) all designated DWMAs/ACECs and included new management measures for desert tortoise conservation, including limiting various recreational activities, such as off-highway vehicle races, within the conservation areas. The California Desert Conservation Area also encompasses the 10,117-hectare (25,000acre) Desert Tortoise Natural Area, which was established in the western Mojave Desert in 1972. The Mojave National Preserve was created under the California Desert Protection Act in 1994 for which a general management plan was drafted in 2002 (NPS 2002b). The California Desert Protection Act also expanded the boundaries of both Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and designated millions of acres of wilderness, which eliminated vehicle access to these areas. PECI Many of the actions recommended in the 1994 Recovery Plan have been incorporated into the land and resource management plans identified above, particularly within DWMAs/ACECs. Tracy et al. (2004) summarized the level of implementation of the management recommendations by reviewing land and wildlife managers responses to surveys asking what recovery actions had been implemented. However, the survey responses were not explicit enough to quantify the level of implementation for each specific recovery action; therefore, the results only speak to whether or not some action had been taken. In addition, research and monitoring have not been targeted to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions (Boarman and Kristan 2006), and ongoing population monitoring has been performed at a regional scale rather than a local implementation scale. The main conclusion was that improved reporting and quantification of recovery actions is necessary to more accurately assess the progress of desert tortoise recovery (Tracy et al. 2004).

25

AL DESIGNATIONS 3. Improved Grazing Management A specific example of landscape-scale conservation of desert tortoise habitat was improved grazing management on several allotments within designated critical habitat on public lands. This was identified in the 1994 Recovery Plan as an important component in the recovery of the species. For example, in 1995 the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee and The Wildlands Conservancy bought the 550-hectare (1,360-acre) Blackwater Well Ranch in northwestern San Bernardino County and is managing grazing on the 19,830-hectare (49,000-acre) Pilot Knob cattle grazing allotment. The Bureau of Land Management removed grazing on nearly 1,214,000 hectares (3,000,000 acres) within the California portions of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts (BLM 2002a,b; BLM et al. 2005; USFWS 2005, 2006b). In addition, national Bureau of Land Management grazing administration regulations became effective in 1996, which provided direction for states to develop Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management on Bureau of Land Management Lands (BLM 1996). All of the states within the range of the desert tortoise have incorporated standards and guidelines into their management plans. Under the West Mojave Plan (BLM et al. 2005), grazing has been retired on several allotments mostly within designated critical habitat or DWMAs. Additional management improvements such as season of use and forage type (ephemeral or perennial) have also been instituted on some allotments within the plan area. Fort Irwin, which lies within the West Mojave Plan area, purchased fee lands within three cattle allotments in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit to partially offset the effects of its base expansion, and the Bureau of Land Management subsequently retired grazing on these allotments. The Bureau of Land Management has retired grazing from at least four other allotments in the plan area. Collectively, over 307,560 hectares (760,000 acres) in the West Mojave Plan area have been retired from grazing. Within the West Mojave Plan area, the Bureau of Land Management has identified a number of conservation prescriptions to be implemented within cattle and sheep allotments. The Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan (BLM 2002a) instituted improved grazing practices on approximately 126,260 hectares (312,000 acres), which constitutes all but about 5,261 hectares (13,000 acres) of critical habitat in the Shadow Valley and Ivanpah Valley DWMAs. Grazing remains on one allotment within the Ivanpah Valley DWMA with some utilization restrictions, and all ephemeral (seasonal) allotments within DWMAs will be terminated. The Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (BLM 2002b) established two DWMAs that encompass over 647,500 hectares (1,600,000 acres). Only one allotment remains within designated critical habitat or a DWMA. Approximately 8,090 hectares (20,000 acres) of this active allotment was closed to grazing due to high tortoise densities, and in other portions of the allotment, utilization restrictions and season of use requirements will be implemented. Under the Mojave National Preserve General Management Plan (NPS 2002b), grazing has been removed on nine allotments and remains active on another two (D. Hughson, NPS, pers. comm. 2007). The overall management goal is to remove grazing on the entire Preserve through voluntary relinquishment by lessees or acquisition of grazing permits and water rights by

26

conservation organizations. These activities will be managed according to Bureau of Land Management allotment management plans and National Park Service grazing management plans, together with additional restrictions designed to improve resource protection (NPS 2002b). In Joshua Tree National Park, there are no active grazing allotments (M. Vamstad, Joshua Tree National Park, pers. comm. 2008). Since 1994, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service have closed 70 ephemeral grazing allotments in Clark and southern Nye counties totaling over 2,023,400 hectares (5,000,000 acres). Approximately 22,600 hectares (56,000 acres) currently remain available for grazing in five allotments in Clark and southern Nye counties (E. Masters, BLM, pers. comm. 2007). According to the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan, no permitted grazing occurs within ACECs in Clark County and southern Nye County (BLM 1998a). Under the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and its predecessor (see discussion below), which lies within the Southern Nevada District of the Bureau of Land Management, the County has been actively purchasing the rights to permanently remove grazing from over 809,370 hectares (2,000,000 acres) of public lands within and outside of DWMAs (J. Bair, USFWS, pers. comm. 2007). Under the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment (Lincoln County, Nevada), all allotments or portions of allotments within ACECs were closed to livestock grazing (85,996 hectares [212,500 acres]). Outside ACECs, season of use on all perennial allotments was established through allotment evaluation and multiple-use decision processes. It was determined for areas outside ACECs, livestock use could occur between March 15 and October 15 provided forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent for key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs (BLM 2000). Allotment closures and restrictions were also instituted on the Bureau of Land Management Arizona Strip District within ACECs and within the National Monuments (BLM 1998b; BLM 2007a). Livestock grazing is authorized on portions of 11 allotments that support desert tortoise habitat. Improved grazing management will be implemented in these areas; grazing use is limited to October 15 through March 15, generally coinciding with desert tortoise inactivity. Ecological site inventory (basic inventory of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands) data are expected to serve as the baseline for range conditions, and utilization is not to exceed 45 percent of the current years growth. Overall, conditions must meet the Bureau of Land Managements Standards for Rangeland Health and National Park Services Vital Sign Standards (BLM 2007a). 4. Land Acquisitions and Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) Land acquisitions and transfers may negatively impact desert tortoises and their habitats when the intention is development. On the other hand, these transactions may result in conservation benefits. For instance, since 1986, California Department of Fish and Game has acquired over 19,670 hectares (48,000 acres) of desert tortoise habitat within critical habitat, and additional lands with endowment fees have been and continue to be acquired through mitigation for projects that impact desert tortoises. To ensure management of these lands, endowment fees are collected for each parcel acquired (Steele and Jones 2006). In addition, under the Southern

27

Nevada Public Lands Management Act (see Appendix A: Land Acquisitions, Exchanges, and Transfers), approximately 1,500 hectares (3,725 acres) within occupied or suitable desert tortoise habitat have been purchased since 2000 through the land acquisition program for environmentally sensitive lands (BLM 2007b). In 1999, The Wildlands Conservancy facilitated the purchase of nearly 242,810 hectares (600,000 acres) under their California Desert Land Acquisition Project. It funded the purchase of over 34,425 hectares (85,000 acres) in the Mojave National Preserve, 8,100 hectares (20,000 acres) in Joshua Tree National Park, and over 85,050 hectares (210,000 acres) in 20 Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas and other important areas, including designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The acquisition of these lands will ensure landscape-level conservation into the future and will provide habitat connectivity and reduce the potential for fragmentation (The Wildlands Conservancy 2009). The Department of the Army purchased approximately 39,285 hectares (97,000 acres) of lands formerly owned by the Catellus Development Corporation and fee lands within three cattle allotments in the Western Mojave Recovery Unit to partially offset the effects of the National Training Center expansion; the Bureau of Land Management subsequently retired these allotments on over 129,500 hectares (320,000 acres), the majority of which are within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise (R. Bransfield, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2009). Several HCPs have been developed for private lands within desert tortoise habitat that include provisions for acquisitions and transfers that would meet the objectives of the HCP as well as secure conservation lands for tortoises. However, land acquisition can be an expensive, time-consuming task. For example, 61 separate actions were necessary to acquire just over 3,760 hectares (9,300 acres) within the 25,090-hectare (62,000-acre) Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, which was established to provide protection for the desert tortoise and its habitat under the 1996 Washington County HCP in Utah. Approximately 2,995 hectares (7,400 acres) remain to be acquired within the present boundaries of the Reserve. The approximate value of the lands acquired stands at $87,073,000 (not adjusted for present value) (J. Crisp, BLM, pers. comm. 2007). In southern Nevada, the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was completed in 2000. The Clark County MSHCP superseded the Desert Conservation Plan, which was prepared in response to the Federal listing of the desert tortoise as a threatened species. The MSHCP plan area encompasses a total of 169,160 hectares (418,000 acres) (all of Clark County and, for the Nevada Department of Transportation, portions of Nye, Lincoln, Mineral, and Esmeralda counties, Nevada) (RECON 2000). The underlying purpose of the MSHCP is to achieve a balance between the long-term conservation of listed species and natural resources that are an important part of the natural heritage of Clark County and the economic development of Clark County (USFWS 2000a). As additional mitigation under the MSHCP, Clark County purchased a 34,800-hectare (86,000-acre), long-term conservation easement (50 years) from Boulder City.

28

Under the Clark County MSHCP, site-specific conservation management strategies were required for each of the DWMAs within the county; these include Coyote Springs, Gold Butte, Mormon Mesa, and Piute-Eldorado (Clark County 2007a,b,c,d, respectively). The purpose of each conservation management strategy is to guide species and habitat management using a coordinated, adaptively managed approach. Each strategy identifies management actions, protective measures, restoration efforts, public outreach and education, inventory and monitoring actions, applied research actions, and impact mitigation measures that will direct conservation of tortoises and their habitats. Habitat conservation plans are also being developed for other parts of southern Nevada. An HCP for the Coyote Springs Valley in Lincoln County includes allowing development of 8,680 hectares (21,454 acres) over 40 years while setting aside a 5,570-hectare (13,767-acre) reserve for the desert tortoise and other sensitive species (ENTRIX et al. 2008). In addition, mitigation fees paid by the applicant for the loss of desert tortoise habitat would be used to fund management of the reserve and desert tortoise research. The Southeastern Lincoln County HCP is in the final planning stages. The plan area totals 720,400 hectares (1,780,140 acres), of which 311,365 hectares (769,400 acres) is desert tortoise habitat. Approximately 9,090 hectares (20,000 acres) of the tortoise habitat within the plan area will be developed over a 30-year time frame. The focus of this plan is to provide a mechanism to allow orderly growth and development north of Mesquite and urban expansion in the Alamo area in Lincoln County (J. Brown, USFWS, pers. comm. 2007). The loss of desert tortoise habitat will be mitigated through funding of restoration efforts within the Beaver Dam Slope and Mormon Mesa critical habitat units and various research and monitoring activities (J. Krueger, USFWS, pers. comm. 2009). In Nye County, efforts continue to work with landowners and local governments to develop HCPs for projects that may adversely affect desert tortoises in the Pahrump Valley. The Coachella Valley MSHCP in Riverside County, California, would establish conservation areas and a reserve system for species and natural communities covered under the plan, including the desert tortoise. These lands constitute approximately 301,855 hectares (745,900 acres) within the 485,620-hectare (1,200,000-acre) plan area boundary. About 206,790 hectares (511,000 acres) of desert tortoise habitat lies within the areas identified for conservation under the Coachella Valley MSHCP, with about 65,150 hectares (161,000 acres) not yet secured for these purposes. The conserved lands include the 9,090-hectare (20,000-acre) Coachella Valley Preserve that was established in 1986 for Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata). Over 26,300 hectares (65,000 acres) (12 percent of all habitat and 28 percent of nonFederal land within the plan area) are subject to disturbance under the plan. This constitutes about 4,450 hectares (11,000 acres) of what is considered core habitat for various species as described in the Coachella Valley MSHCP. The plan was completed in 2007 (Coachella Valley Association of Governments 2007), and the associated record of decision and biological opinion were issued in October 2008 (USFWS 2008). The California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment for the Coachella Valley specifically commits the Bureau of Land Management to conserving at least 99 percent of vegetation community types on the lands it administers within the MSHCP reserve system. In the portion of the MSHCP area where the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan applies to federal land, new surface disturbance is cumulatively limited to 1

29

percent of the federal portion of each critical habitat unit, which is consistent with the other large regional plans (Coachella Valley Association of Governments 2007; BLM 2002c). Within the region covered by the West Mojave Plan (BLM et al. 2005), a MSHCP is being drafted for development on approximately 1,214,000 hectares (3,000,000 acres) of private lands. This plan may cover as many as 15 species, including the desert tortoise. The MSHCP is still in the planning stages, and the specific goals and objectives have yet to be determined. Desert tortoise population monitoring has occurred in association with the Washington County HCP and Clark County MSHCP. Sufficient time has not passed to allow for large-scale increases of tortoise populations because the reproductive rate of the desert tortoise is slow (see Population Trends and Distribution). Continued management and focused monitoring, similar to the recovery strategy outlined below, are required to determine whether the HCPs are meeting their objectives. 5. Other Activities Over 404,685 hectares (1,000,000 acres) of Mojave Desert vegetation burned in wildfires in 2005 and 2006, fueled largely by invasive, non-native grasses. About half of the areas burned supports desert tortoise habitat, and if this trend continues, native plant communities and much of the diversity of the Mojave Desert ecosystem may eventually be lost. Because of this recent devastating fire activity in the Mojave Desert, research scientists, land managers, and agency biologists in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah have come together to develop an initiative designed to protect intact, functional habitats and restore key areas that have burned. This initiative is a collaborative effort among Federal, State, and local jurisdictions and will focus on fire management and habitat protection and restoration. During the summer of 2005, wildfires burned approximately 36,180 hectares (89,400 acres) within the Pakoon Basin of the Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument; about 14,570 hectares (36,000 acres) are located within the Gold Butte-Pakoon critical habitat unit for the desert tortoise. As a result, the Arizona Strip District of the Bureau of Land Management initiated soil stabilization and revegetation efforts of desert tortoise habitats using a variety of treatments, including aerial seed application, mechanical seed incorporation, and grazing exclusion (fencing). Rehabilitation objectives and success criteria were developed and control efforts for invasive species initiated (USFWS 2006c). The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey in Nevada have also implemented emergency rehabilitation projects after wildfires (DeFalco et al. 2007). Restoration efforts in response to wildfires and other land disturbances have been long practiced in the Mojave Desert. Because natural plant succession is variable over time subsequent to disturbance, land managers and researchers attempt to facilitate revegetation of disturbed sites and typically observe mixed results (Ostler et al. 2002; Warren and Ostler 2002; Ostler and Hansen 2003; Abella et al. 2007; DeFalco et al. 2007). Site treatment, soil amendments, timing of the projects, and the environmental conditions all work to influence effectiveness of these efforts. To facilitate fire suppression activities, the Fish and Wildlife Services California-Nevada Operations (now, Pacific Southwest Region) manager issued a memo to the Desert Tortoise

30

Management Oversight Group in May 2006 recommending that when feasible, implementing suppression techniques that minimize impacts to the habitat is desirable; however, reduction of total acreage lost to fire, especially in critical habitat, through the use of mobile attack with engines, fireline construction with bulldozers, aerial fire retardant, or other necessary techniques should be prioritized. Subsequently, the Mojave Desert Initiative developed more specific priorities and guidance for incident commanders. We are actively working with our partners to identify the most appropriate locations for firefighting personnel and ways to improve communication during incidents. We are currently undertaking efforts to reduce human subsidies of food, water, and nest sites to the common raven in the California desert. Activities designed to reduce raven predation on desert tortoises include reducing trash availability at landfills, removing illegal dumps, fencing along highways to reduce road-kills, and removing or modifying nesting and roost sites. The program also provides immediate protection to hatchling and juvenile desert tortoises by identifying and removing ravens that have preyed or attempted to prey on desert tortoises. The environmental assessment we recently released provides a full description of the proposed activities (USFWS et al. 2008). Bureau of Land Managements West Mojave Plan includes a series of recommendations to reduce raven predation on the desert tortoise including, but not limited to, controlling solid and organic wastes and standing water at and outside of sanitary landfills; encouraging livestock operators to reduce availability of food sources for ravens; limiting availability of nesting and perch substrates, especially in the urban interface; selectively removing problem ravens especially within the Desert Tortoise Natural Area, critical habitat units, and head-starting sites; conducting additional research on raven life history, behavior, and efficacy of control methods; and implementing adaptive management and public education programs (BLM et al. 2005). In addition, most of the counties and local jurisdictions, such as San Bernardino and Kern counties, have taken considerable steps to improve their operations to minimize windblown litter and bird vectors. The California Desert Managers Group oversees a program to develop and implement an information and education campaign about the desert tortoise to build public support for, and involvement in, its recovery. The Clark County (Nevada) Desert Conservation Program also includes an education component that targets communities in southern Nevada and extends into portions of Arizona. The outreach efforts attempt to inform the public about desert tortoise conservation issues through brochures, surveys and feedback, and educational materials for schools. I. BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS AND NEEDS The biological constraints that were identified in the 1994 Recovery Plan (i.e., life history and reproductive characteristics and maintenance of genetic and ecological variability) remain important considerations in current and future recovery planning and implementation. Desert tortoises possess a combination of life history and reproductive characteristics that affect the ability of populations to survive external threats. For instance, this long-lived species requires 13 to 20 years to reach sexual maturity and has low reproductive rates during a long period of

31

reproductive potential (Turner et al. 1984; Germano 1994). Also, similar to other turtles, desert tortoises experience relatively high mortality early in life. These factors make recovery of the desert tortoise more difficult, and one or two good years of reproductive success do not signal a trend toward recovery any more than several poor ones signal inevitable extirpation (USFWS 1994a). Delayed but prolonged reproduction is advantageous where availability of resources is unpredictable and juvenile survival rates are highly variable, but even moderate downward fluctuations in adult survival rates can result in rapid population declines (Congdon et al. 1993; Doak et al. 1994; Wisdom et al. 2000). Thus, high survivorship of adult desert tortoises is critical to the species persistence, and the slow growth rate of populations can leave them susceptible to extirpation events in areas where adult survivorship has been reduced (USFWS 1994a). Another factor integral to desert tortoise recovery is maintaining the genetic variability of the species and sufficient ecological heterogeneity within and among populations (Murphy et al. 2007; Hagerty and Tracy 2010). This variation is necessary to allow tortoises to adapt to changes in the environment over time (USFWS 1994a). Finally, because desert tortoises occupy large home ranges, the long-term persistence of extensive, unfragmented habitats is essential for the survival of the species (USFWS 1994a). The loss or degradation of these habitats to urbanization, habitat conversion from frequent wildfire, or other landscapemodifying activities place the desert tortoise at increased risk of extirpation because the tortoise depends on the cover of shrubs and annuals for forage provided by contiguous native vegetation communities.

32

II. RECOVERY PROGRAM

A. RECOVERY STRATEGY Recovery of the desert tortoise has been and will continue to be complex and challenging. Tortoise populations face a wide range of threats. Desert tortoises require over a decade to reach sexual maturity, have reproduction that varies through time, and juveniles have variable but low survival rates. Therefore, tortoise populations will be naturally slow to increase in response to strategies designed to ameliorate anthropogenic impacts. These life history characteristics, combined with reduced populations and extended time periods for recovery of desert ecosystems, also make it difficult to assess relative impacts of individual threats. The 1994 Recovery Plan described a strategy for recovering the desert tortoise, which included the identification of six recovery units, recommendations for a system of Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) within the recovery units, and development and implementation of specific recovery actions focused within the DWMAs. Maintaining high survivorship of adult desert tortoises was identified as the key factor in recovery, and because the list of threats to the species remains mostly unchanged, the requisite management or recovery actions also remain appropriate. We recognize that the most significant challenge in the implementation of the 1994 Recovery Plan was not the number or types of actions implemented, but rather the coordination, description, documentation, and evaluation of implementation of the actions (Tracy et al., 2004). As a result, the revised strategy described herein builds upon the foundation laid by the 1994 Recovery Plan by emphasizing partnerships to direct and maintain focus on implementing recovery actions and a system to track implementation and effectiveness of recovery actions. Strategic elements within a multi-faceted approach designed to improve the 1994 Recovery Plan are: 1. Develop, support, and build partnerships to facilitate recovery; 2. Protect existing populations and habitat, instituting habitat restoration where necessary; 3. Augment depleted populations in a strategic manner; 4. Monitor progress toward recovery; 5. Conduct applied research and modeling in support of recovery efforts within a strategic framework; and 6. Implement a formal adaptive management program through which information gained while implementing the above strategic elements is used to revise and improve the recovery plan and recommend management actions on a regular basis. Each strategic element is described more fully below, but the recovery program does not provide a cookbook of prescriptions that will ensure recovery of the desert tortoise; therefore, the actions proposed do not constitute an exhaustive list. Instead, this program establishes a process by which recovery can be achieved.

33

1. Strategic Element 1: Develop, Support, and Build Partnerships to Facilitate Recovery Implementing a recovery plan for a species with a wide distribution and facing such complex challenges requires many cooperators and diverse partnerships. As noted above, we believe the most significant challenge in the implementation of the 1994 Recovery Plan was not necessarily the number or types of actions implemented, but rather the coordination, description, documentation, and evaluation of implementation of the actions. The revised recovery plan emphasizes partnering across jurisdictional boundaries through standing Recovery Implementation Teams to maintain focus on implementing and tracking recovery actions. Therefore, this element relies on the successful establishment of regional, long-term Recovery Implementation Teams comprised of land managers, stakeholders, and scientists that will work together to develop recovery action plans, prioritize recovery actions on the ground, secure necessary resources, and compile results into a range-wide database and decision support system that can be applied at the local level (Element 6). Activities of implementation teams at the local level will be coordinated with landscape and regional-level alternative-energy coordination efforts. The Recovery Implementation Teams will also facilitate education and outreach activities to build support for, understanding of, and compliance with the recovery program. Organization of Recovery Implementation Teams generally will be based on recovery units, but it may vary depending on logistical practicalities among the representatives. Our Desert Tortoise Recovery Office will serve as the focal point for coordinating Recovery Implementation Teams in cooperation with the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group. 2. Strategic Element 2: Protect Existing Populations and Habitat Since 1994, desert tortoise habitat has continued to be lost or degraded (e.g., by urbanization, fire, invasive plants; see Appendix A), keeping tortoise populations in an insecure state, including those that may not be currently in decline. As a result, protecting existing populations and habitat is extremely important. The recommended actions in the 1994 Recovery Plan formed a logical basis for recovery (GAO 2002), and little information since 1994 contradicts these recommendations (Boarman and Kristan 2006). In fact, due to slow growth rates of individuals and populations, insufficient time has elapsed over which detectable increases in desert tortoise populations could be expected. In any case, applying uniform, highly restrictive regulations across the entire Mojave population is not feasible, even if we knew the precise mechanisms affecting population declines at each site. Therefore, aggressive management as generally recommended in the 1994 Recovery Plan needs to be applied within existing tortoise conservation areas (Box 2) or Box 2. Tortoise conservation areas, other important areas identified by Recovery collectively depicted in Figure 2, include desert Implementation Teams (e.g., important genetic tortoise habitat within critical habitat, Desert linkages identified by Hagerty et al. 2010) to Wildlife Management Areas, Areas of Critical ensure that populations remain distributed Environmental Concern, Grand Canyonthroughout the species range (Element 1). Parashant National Monument, Desert National Tortoise conservation areas capture the Wildlife Refuge, National Park Service lands, Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, and other diversity of the Mojave population of the desert conservation areas or easements managed for tortoise within each recovery unit, conserving desert tortoises. the genetic breadth of the species, providing a

34

margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events, and providing potential opportunities for continued evolution and adaptive change (Mace and Purvis 2008). Especially given uncertainties related to the effects of climate change on desert tortoise populations and distribution, we consider tortoise conservation areas to be the minimum baseline within which to focus our recovery efforts. Much of the land contained within existing tortoise conservation areas is managed under multiple-use directives. It should also be recognized that activities occurring on lands beyond the boundaries of existing tortoise conservation areas can affect tortoise populations, important linkages between tortoise conservation areas, and the effectiveness of conservation actions occurring within the conservation area boundaries. Agencies should work within the context of their respective land use plans to determine how to effectively implement recovery actions contained within this plan. Recovery Implementation Teams should use the decision support system (Element 6) to guide management both inside and outside tortoise conservation areas, according to different opportunities or constraints within different areas and jurisdictions. While recovery efforts may be prioritized within existing desert tortoise conservation areas, populations, habitats, and actions outside of these areas may also contribute to (or hamper) recovery of the species, and their importance is in no way diminished (other local, State, or Federal regulations may apply to actions potentially impacting tortoises and habitat outside tortoise conservation areas). For example, Department of Defense lands are subject to more dramatic changes in management or use than other Federal lands depending on the changing national security situation. However, the value of military lands to conservation has long been recognized (Stein et al. 2008). Similarly, wilderness designation on public lands entails restrictions on the types of activities that may be conducted there, precluding or otherwise limiting several forms of active management activities. Military lands, wilderness areas, and other land designations with conservation objectives include a great deal of desert tortoise habitat outside of and contiguous with tortoise conservation areas (see Figure 3), making them valuable components of the recovery landscape. In addition to habitat management recommendations, specific recommendations for managing desert tortoise populations relative to disease have been recommended by the Science Advisory Committee (Hudson et al. 2009) and are incorporated herein. 3. Strategic Element 3: Augment Depleted Populations through a Strategic Program Due to appreciable declines of tortoise populations across the range, in conjunction with multi-faceted interacting threats, we see the need to introduce population augmentation as a tool for conservation of the desert tortoise. While tortoises seem to respond well to translocation itself, unaddressed threats which remain on the landscape and affect all tortoises, regardless of origin, may make the goal of population growth challenging to realize. Augmentation will be approached experimentally, in terms of both the continued development and evaluation of techniques and through the use of augmentation to help assess specific threats and recovery actions (Tracy et al. 2004; Armstrong and Seddon 2007). Population augmentation in conjunction with threats management and restoration activities (Element 2), as well as research (Element 5) designed to investigate the effectiveness of these actions is a means to gain insights into causes of declines and to increase the rate at which depleted populations could be revived. It is important to realize that if the causes of tortoise population declines are not addressed, simply increasing population numbers in the wild through augmentation will not result in recovery.

35

compatible with tortoise recovery). Recovery Implementation Teams should identify and secure funding for applied research on the effectiveness of recovery actions based on local priorities. Conceptual models should be developed for all recovery actions, and these models should be quantified with new research and monitoring information, as it becomes available. Model desert tortoise demography relative to habitat condition to determine the proportion of habitat that needs to be occupied (or is available to be occupied) for recovery. As habitat-specific demography is clarified, population models should be developed to refine estimates of habitat quantity and tortoise occupancy necessary to sustain populations into the future. Models should incorporate predicted effects of climate change on desert tortoise demography as well as on the current composition of tortoise habitat. Information from this recovery action is essential to refining Recovery Criterion 3 relative to the amount of habitat needed to meet the conditions for delisting. Update previous population viability analyses (USFWS 1994a). New demographic data should be used to conduct population viability analyses with an emphasis on exploring the impact of environmental catastrophes and spatiotemporal variation (variation in space and time) on long-term persistence within tortoise conservation areas.

5.4.

Conduct research on desert tortoise diseases and their effects on tortoise populations. While the precise role of disease in desert tortoise population declines relative to other threats is unclear, disease has been a high-profile and controversial topic. Therefore, we provide specific recommendations to better understand the nature and relative importance of disease to desert tortoise populations. The first three recommendations below arise from the working hypothesis that mycoplasmosisinduced die-offs are initiated by environmental stressors. Determine whether population declines through environmental stress are less severe when Mycoplasma is absent. Determine if desert tortoises exposed to simulated drought conditions become more susceptible to infection and more infectious. Determine whether diets high in plants of low nutritional value increase susceptibility to disease, as well as infectiousness. Identify the virulent and less virulent strains of Mycoplasma circulating in wild and captive populations and monitor temporal and spatial change in prevalence in relation to host genetic status and environmental stressors. Identification of genes expressing toxin production and the circumstances when these genes are expressed could be a fruitful area of research. Studies examining the level of cross immunity between strains and variation in resistance in relation to the plane of nutrition and availability of water would be of great assistance. This research aims

83

to examine the presence and variation in Mycoplasma strains with the aim of containing virulent strains. Identify which individual tortoises are shedding, how they shed (i.e., transmit), when they shed, and for how long they shed infectious Mycoplasma particles. Identify whether individuals removed from drought-stressed areas or areas with severely deteriorated habitats continue to shed Mycoplasma and for how long. This research will identify in more detail seasonal forces of infection, the period of infectiousness, and how infectiousness varies under different circumstances. Undertake trials to determine if it is possible to cure individuals with Mycoplasma infections, even if only feasible in captive individuals. Preliminary veterinary trials with mixed antibiotics and anti-inflammatory steroids have met with some success and could be extended. Examine the behavior of infectious tortoises in comparison to uninfected tortoises in the wild. Obtain estimates of contact rate according to sex, age, and season. This research will help us understand the most critical epidemiological parameters associated with transmission and, with other data, allow us to produce a predictive model of outbreak. Examine the implications of releasing sick tortoises into uninfected populations. Such studies should occur within enclosures at captive holding facilities. Further explore natural antibodies in desert tortoises. Create a comprehensive disease-tortoise population model that incorporates the above information. A disease-tortoise population model could be used to anticipate outbreaks and patterns of spread. Evaluate other known or emerging diseases for effects on desert tortoise populations. Less is known about other diseases that have been identified in the desert tortoise (e.g., herpesvirus, cutaneous dyskeratosis). Continued study of Mycoplasma will help facilitate investigations of other diseases. In the meantime, surveys or pathological study of other diseases should be conducted within the context of other threats (e.g., 5.4).

5.5.

Determine the importance of corridors and physical barriers to desert tortoise distribution and gene flow. Determining the importance of corridors and barriers will allow population models to be made spatially explicit relative to current land management (e.g., population and habitat fragmentation due to roads, urbanization, and energy development) and potential distributional shifts resulting from climate change.

84

November 6, 2013 Notice of Violations of the ESA

ATTACHMENT 2

November 6, 2013 Notice of Violations of the ESA

ATTACHMENT 3

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 Ph: (702) 515-5230 ~ Fax: (702) 515-5231 November 16, 2012 File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

Memorandum To: Renewable Energy Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada State Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno Review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver State South Solar Energy Project (First Solar LLC), Clark County, Nevada

From: Subject:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Silver State South Solar Energy Project. We prepared this letter under the authority of and in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852], as amended, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884], as amended (Act), and other authorities mandating the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) concern for environmental values. Based on these authorities, we offer the following comments for your consideration. We understand the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would grant a right-of-way (ROW) authorizing the applicant to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a 350-megawatt solar photovoltaic power plant on BLM-administered lands in the Ivanpah Valley along the California/Nevada state line 2 miles east of Primm in Clark County, Nevada. The draft SEIS analyzes three action alternatives with ROWs ranging from 2,515 to 3,855 acres and designation of a 40,180-acre Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). As discussed in the draft SEIS, the proposed project would negatively impact the federally listed as threatened, Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and its habitat. Demographic and genetic connectivity for the Mojave desert tortoise We are concerned about habitat fragmentation and demographic and genetic isolation of desert tortoise populations within the Ivanpah Valley and recommend that BLM select the No Action alternative. Maintaining a robust population of desert tortoises within the Ivanpah Valley area is of particular importance because the habitat is already highly fragmented. Currently, the desert tortoise population within the Ivanpah Valley is only tenuously connected to the Ivanpah Critical

Renewable Energy Project Manager

File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

Habitat Unit. This valley is a critical link between desert tortoise conservation areas in California and Nevada (Hagerty et al. 2011; Service 2012). Only four potential linkages remain in Ivanpah Valley (Service 2011). The linkage between the Silver State North project and the Lucy Gray Mountains is the widest of these linkages and likely the most reliable for continued population connectivity (Service 2011). Habitat linkages need to be wide enough to support a diverse age structure and sex ratio within the linkage (Barrows et al. 2011). Desert tortoises can occupy narrow canyon passes, and such linkages may provide connectivity for long-term gene flow. However, the effects on population demographics by constricting a linkage to a narrow corridor with a lower number of desert tortoises remain a concern. A single desert tortoise uses a lifetime utilization area of approximately 1.4 miles wide (Service 1994). Multiple lifetime utilization areas are necessary for desert tortoises to find mates, reproduce (demographics), and maintain populations during years of low habitat quality, periodic fire, and disease outbreak (stochastic events) (Beier et al. 2008). For example, the diameter of two multiple lifetime utilization areas would be 2.8 miles wide; three would be 4.2 miles wide; and so on. In the biological opinion for the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generation Station issued to BLM on June 10, 2011 (Service 2011), the maintenance of a suitable linkage between the Silver State Project and the Lucy Gray Mountains was a key reason why we concluded that connectivity would still be maintained after construction of that project. As proposed, the project could disturb up to an additional 3,855 acres (6 square miles) in this linkage, thus reducing this linkage to the following approximate widths (see attached maps): Alternative A No action B Proposed action C Alternative layoutb D Modification to proposed action layout
a b

New Disturbance (acres) 0 3,855 2,515 3,102

Linkage width (miles)a 2.0 0.02 (100 feet) 1.0 0.3c

Measured from the Silver State North project east to the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains. Originally analyzed in the 2010 EIS (BLM 2010) and 2010 biological opinion (Service 2010). c Measured from the detention basin on the eastern edge of the proposed site to the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains.

We recommend BLM select the No Action alternative to avoid reducing the width of the existing corridor. If this is not possible, we ask BLM to minimize impacts to the linkage by creating and selecting a new alternative that would protect a corridor of undisturbed desert tortoise habitat between the Silver State North project and the Lucy Gray Mountains. This corridor should be wide enough to accommodate multiple desert tortoise ranges, spanning up to several times the desert tortoise lifetime utilization area. Attached is a map showing the footprint of the Silver State South combined alternatives, along with a 1.4-mile distance from the suitable habitat. 2

Renewable Energy Project Manager

File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

If this new alternative is selected, we ask BLM and the applicant commit to specific mitigation actions that would help offset a reduction in this linkage. These actions may include: (1) funding genetic and disease testing and removing the fence at the long-term translocation site to increase connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley; (2) funding culvert construction under roads in Ivanpah Valley to connect populations on either side of Interstate 15; and (3) funding recovery actions identified by the desert tortoise recovery 5-year action plan. Additionally, we ask that BLM and the applicant commit to specific monitoring studies to help us understand the impacts to population demographics (age and sex ratios) and genetic stability of the desert tortoise population as a result of the project and for other projects in the Ivanpah Valley, such as funding a genomic study that looks at fine-grained genetic relationships to reveal patterns of movement and connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley. Desert tortoise translocation The Service does not support translocation as a proven minimization measure for development projects. While loss of individuals would be reduced, translocation of desert tortoises could result in considerable effects to both translocated individuals and individuals that are resident to any identified translocation site. Based on pre-project surveys in the project area and large acreage associated with the proposed project, complete avoidance of the need to translocate desert tortoises is unlikely. Therefore, we recommend the project be sited in the area with lowest desert tortoise density within the analysis area to minimize the impacts to desert tortoises from translocation. Area of Critical Environmental Concern nomination We recommend BLM adopt the ACEC component of Alternative D and the management prescriptions listed in Table 2-2 of the draft SEIS. Further, we ask that BLM include the acreage between the Silver State North project, or the new boundary of the Silver State South project, and the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains in the ACEC (roughly the acreage described as the project site layout for Alternative D). Although we cannot predict if future development in the Ivanpah Valley would result in loss of a viable genetic link, reduction of the remaining desert tortoise habitat and development within undisturbed desert tortoise habitat in the Ivanpah Valley may exacerbate existing fragmentation of desert tortoise habitat. These smaller, fragmented populations may be more susceptible to stochastic population declines, thereby reducing the viability of the greater population. Further, the developed area would likely be uninhabitable to desert tortoises for several desert tortoise generations because natural recovery of vegetation in the desert can take 50 to 300 years (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999; Abella 2010).

Renewable Energy Project Manager

File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

Migratory birds and eagles The Service encourages energy development that is wildlife and habitat-friendly. Although little is known about how utility-scale solar energy facilities affect birds and bats, we anticipate that bird and bat mortality could occur from collisions with transmission lines and solar panels. Additionally, extensive terrestrial habitat loss would indirectly affect wildlife. The Service recommends that utility-scale solar energy facilities develop a Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS). A BBCS is a project-specific document that delineates a program designed to reduce the operational risks that result from bird and bat interactions with a specific solar energy facility. Further, we recommend development of an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP). As discussed in the draft SEIS, ground surveys observed a pair of golden eagles soaring over the ROW. Additionally, four possible golden eagle nests were detected within 10 miles of the ROW with the nearest territory located approximately 5 miles away. An ECP is a project-specific document that delineates a program designed to reduce the operational risks specifically to bald and golden eagles. Attached are several documents that provide guidelines for development of a BBCS and ECP. The BBCS and ECP should contain a risk assessment to evaluate potential take and a scientifically rigorous post-construction monitoring scheme. They also should contain adaptive management strategies to implement appropriate corrective actions should birds, bats, and eagles be impacted. Although each projects plan will be different, the overall goal of the BBCS and ECP should be to reduce, and ultimately eliminate bird and bat mortality to the extent practicable. For more information, contact our regional migratory bird biologist at Chris_Nicolai@fws.gov. Endangered species consultation As a reminder, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act each Federal agency shall insure, in consultation with the Service, that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Therefore, we ask that BLM initiate formal consultation under the Act and provide a biological assessment (BA) with a determination of "may affect, likely to adversely affect." The BA should provide details of the proposed action including, construction, operation, and maintenance, and their effects to the desert tortoise. The action area must include all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not merely the immediate area of direct disturbance. Based on the proposed action and local topography, the action area should include the Ivanpah and Roach Lake valleys between the Clark and Lucy Gray mountains.

Renewable Energy Project Manager

File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

Conclusion As discussed above, the Ivanpah Valley is critically important to deseli tortoise population connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley Critical Habitat Unit. We recommend BLM select the 'No Action' alternative to avoid impacting the nanow linkage that currently exists between the Silver State NOlih project and the Lucy Gray Mountains. Ifthis is not possible, we ask BLM to create and select a new alternative that will minimize impacts by preserving a protected corridor of undisturbed desert tortoise habitat between the Silver State NOlih project and the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains. This corridor should be wide enough to accommodate multiple desert tOlioise ranges, spanning up to several times the deseli tOlioise lifetime utilization area at the nan'owest point. Additionally, we ask BLM and the applicant identify and commit to specific mitigation actions and monitoring studies that would help address potential project impacts to the demographic and genetic stability ofthe deseli tOlioise population within the Ivanpah Valley. We appreciate the oppOliunity to review and comment on the project. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Brian A. Novosak in the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office in Las Vegas at (702) 515-5230. Please reference the file number above in future correspondence concerning this project.

Edward D. Koch

Attachments (7) cc: Adaptive Management Coordinator, Deseli Conservation Program, Las Vegas, Nevada Chief, Saint George Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Saint George, Utah District Biologist, California Desert District Office, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California Environnlental Scientist, Communities and Ecosystem Division, Region 9 Environmental Review Office, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, California Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California Supervisory Biologist-Habitat, Nevada Depmiment of Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada Assistant Field Manager, Division of Renewable Resources, Las Vegas Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada

Renewable Energy Project Manager

File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

Literature Cited Abella, S.R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts of the American Southwest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7: 1248-1284. Barrows, C.W., K.D. Fleming, and M.F. Allen. 2011. Identifying habitat linkages to maintain connectivity for corridor dwellers in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:682-691. Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and W.D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836-851. Available on the Internet at: http://corridordesign.org/dl/docs/Beier.Majka.Spencer.2008.ConsBiol. LinkageDesigns.pdf [BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Final environmental impact statement for the Silver State Solar Energy Project (DOI No. FES 10-50). Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office. Las Vegas, Nevada. September 2010. 1,019 pp. Available on the Internet at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/nextlight_renewable0.html Hagerty, B.E., K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, and C.R. Tracy. 2011. Making molehills out of mountains: landscape genetics of the Mojave desert tortoise. Landscape Ecology 26:267280. Available on the Internet at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/qu18806111q644t3/ fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP Latch E.K., W.I. Boarman, A. Walde, R.C. Fleischer. 2011. Fine-scale analysis reveals cryptic landscape genetic structure in desert tortoises. PLOS ONE 6(11):e27794.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027794. November 2011. 10 pp. Available on the Internet at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0027794 Lovich, J.E., and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California desert ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environmental Management 249: 309-326. Available on the internet at: http://www.dmg.gov/documents/ STDY_Anthro_Degrdtn_of_S_CA_Dsrt_Ecsystm_and_Prspcts_for_Nat_Rec_and_Rest_ LovichJ_090399.pdf [Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 73 pp, plus appendices. Available on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt_reports.html

Renewable Energy Project Manager

File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Formal consultation for the Silver State Solar Project (NextLight Renewable Power, LLC). Service File No. 84320-2010-F-0208. Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. Las Vegas, Nevada. September 16, 2010. 73 pp. Available on the Internet at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/ nextlight_renewable0.html [Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Reinitiated biological opinion on BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project. Service File No. 8-8-10-F-24R. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Ventura, California. June 2011. 108 pp. Available on the Internet at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/fasttrack/ ivanpahsolar/fedstatus.html [Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Connectivity of Mojave desert tortoise populations. Desert Tortoise Recovery Office. Reno, Nevada. March 2012. 18 pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NEVADA
Ivanpah Valley

Silver State South - No Action

Legend
Silver State North Other Alternatives 1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat E edge of DT habitat 4200 foot line

1 Miles

Unsuitable: Cobbles and Boulders 2 Blackbrush and Yucca

Primm, Nevada Semi-suitable: Extremely gravelly Creosote-Bursage

Highly Suitable: Very gravelly sandy loam Creosote-Bursage

PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE LAS VEGAS, NEVADA LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010 MAP DATE: BASEMAP: MERIDIAN: N/A FILE:

0.5

1 Kilometers

2 Miles

0.5

UTM ZONE 11 NAD 83

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NEVADA

Silver State South - Alternative B

Ivanpah Valley

Legend
Alternative B Silver State North Other Alternatives 1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat E edge of DT habitat 4200 foot line

0.5 Miles

Unsuitable: Cobbles and Boulders Blackbrush and Yucca

Primm, Nevada Semi-suitable: Extremely gravelly Creosote-Bursage

Highly Suitable: Very gravelly sandy loam Creosote-Bursage

PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE LAS VEGAS, NEVADA LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010 MAP DATE: BASEMAP: MERIDIAN: N/A FILE:

0.5

1 Kilometers

2 Miles

0.5

UTM ZONE 11 NAD 83

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NEVADA

Silver State South - Alternative C

Ivanpah Valley

Legend
Alternative C Silver State North Other Alternatives 1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat E edge of DT habitat 4200 foot line

0.5 Miles

Unsuitable: Cobbles and Boulders 1 Blackbrush and Yucca

Primm, Nevada Semi-suitable: Extremely gravelly Creosote-Bursage

Highly Suitable: Very gravelly sandy loam Creosote-Bursage

PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE LAS VEGAS, NEVADA LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010 MAP DATE: BASEMAP: MERIDIAN: N/A FILE:

0.5

1 Kilometers

2 Miles

0.5

UTM ZONE 11 NAD 83

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

NEVADA

Silver State South - Alternative D

Ivanpah Valley

Legend
Alternative D Silver State North Other Alternatives 1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat E edge of DT habitat 4200 foot line

Unsuitable: Cobbles and Boulders Blackbrush and Yucca

0.5 Miles

Primm, Nevada Semi-suitable: Extremely gravelly Creosote-Bursage

Highly Suitable: Very gravelly sandy loam Creosote-Bursage

PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE LAS VEGAS, NEVADA LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010 MAP DATE: BASEMAP: MERIDIAN: N/A FILE:

0.5

1 Kilometers

2 Miles

0.5

UTM ZONE 11 NAD 83

November 6, 2013 Notice of Violations of the ESA

ATTACHMENT 4

4524 Briney Point Street La Verne, CA 91750 October 20, 2013 BY E-MAIL ONLY Attn: Brenda Hudgens-Williams P. O. Box 71383 Washington, D.C. Brenda_Hudgens-Williams@blm.gov RE: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for Silver State Solar South Dear Ms. Hudgen-Williams, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Silver State South (SSS) project. As a Professor Emeritus of Zoology and Environmental Science at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (retired), I am familiar with the general project area and the biology of the Agassizs Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), herein Desert Tortoise. In addition to reviewing the FSEIS, I have reviewed the project description (Ironwood Consulting, 2012) and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (USFWS BO, 2013). I believe that the FSEIS contains a number of flaws that are being addressed by others. My focus here is on the failure of BLM to appreciate the substantial negative impacts that SSS would have on the Desert Tortoise habitat corridor that runs between Roach Dry Lake and the western base of the Lucy Gray Mountains, and potentially on the species as a whole. Maps in the various documents show that the existing Silver State North (SSN) solar facility already reduces the width of the corridor to two miles at its narrowest point. This is what would remain under the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. The best of the other alternatives for SSS provides a width of only 1.4 miles at the narrowest point. This is the same as the estimated diameter of a single life time home range for an adult male Desert Tortoise that the USFWS BO (2013, p. 52) accepts as adequate to maintain connectivity and gene flow between populations to the north and south, and to avoid a jeopardy opinion. However, this acceptance is problematic because conservation biologists generally maintain that, to be effective, a linkage corridor should represent the width of multiple life time home ranges. In addition to this concern, recent analyses by Sinervo et al. (2013) have indicated that large arrays of dark photovoltaic panels change albedo and create heat islands, the effects of which extend well beyond the arrays themselves. Over time, warming by the solar panels would be added to that expected with climate change, which itself is on the order of 3.5 to 4.0 degrees Celsius (USFWS BO, 2013, p. 29). However, the effects of the SSS essentially would be immediate, exceeding and adding to that of the existing SSN. The proposed Stateline project is nearby and would add even more to the heat load. If the heat island scenario is correct, the combined effects of these solar projects likely will extirpate Desert Tortoises from the linkage corridor, and perhaps Ivanpah Valley, well before climate change becomes dominant over the larger desert area.

Conservation biologists have long recognized the importance of demographic connectivity in maintaining gene flow between populations and how that promotes species survival over the long term. In its 2013 BO (p. 55), the USFWS states that the linkage corridor in question ...likely provides the most reliable potential for continued population connectivity throughout the Ivanpah Valley. In addition, this corridor allows for more complete genetic exchange between the Desert Tortoise populations occupying Ivanpah Valley and Eldorado Valley to the south. Within the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit, these are two of the three areas containing the highest quality habitat and harboring the greatest number of Desert Tortoises (USFWS BO, 2013, p. 50) The goal of the USFWS is to maintain self-sustaining populations of the Desert Tortoise within each recovery unit to ensure the persistence of the species throughout its geographic range, and the agency has recognized the importance of the Ivanpah and Eldorado Valley populations to meeting this goal for the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit (USFWS BO, 2013, p. 52). Clearly, to prevent the likely severe and immediate impacts to the Ivanpah linkage corridor and aid in meeting this goal, the BLM must reject the SSS proposal by accepting the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise! Sincerely, Glenn R. Stewart Glenn R. Stewart, Ph.D. References Cited Ironwood Consulting. 2012. Biological Resources Technical Report, Silver State Solar South, Clark County, Nevada. Ironwood Consulting Inc., 1412 S. Center Street, Redlands, CA 92373. Revised May 1, 2013. 46 pp. + 3 Appendices. Sinervo, B., J. Lovich, J. Ennen, D. B. Miles, R. D. Cooper, and R. B. Huey. 2013. The impact of solar farms and wind farms on population persistence and extinction of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii. Abstract. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Albuquerque, NM. July 13, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Biological Opinion for the Stateline Solar and Silver State Solar South Projects, San Bernardino County, California, and Clark County, Nevada. Memorandum from Acting Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California to Field Manager, Needles Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California; and Assistant Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada. Dated September 30, 2013. 102 pp. + 2 Appendices.

November 6, 2013 Notice of Violations of the ESA

ATTACHMENT 5

Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8(1):1 15. Submitted: 7 August 2012; Accepted: 4 March 2013; Published: 30 April 2013.

CONSERVING POPULATION LINKAGES FOR THE MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII)
ROY C. AVERILL-MURRAY1, CATHERINE R. DARST2, NATHAN STROUT3, AND MARTIN WONG3
1

Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada, USA, email: roy_averill-murray@fws.gov 2 Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California, USA 3 Redlands Institute, University of Redlands, Redlands, California, USA

Abstract.Conservation of Mojave Desert Tortoises is founded on a set of tortoise conservation areas (TCAs) established across the range of the species. Limitations of the existing reserve design and increasing development pressures on the intervening habitat matrix underscore the need to conserve linkages between existing TCAs. We modeled linkages between TCAs using least-cost corridors based on an underlying model of suitable tortoise habitat. Results indicate that TCAs contain 55% of total historic habitat (45,340 km2). A minimum linkage network would contain 16,282 km2 of habitat (20% historic). This combined area of 61,622 km2 represents an initial framework to develop a conservation network for the species, taking into account large areas of existing high-intensity human uses such as military operations and off-highway-vehicle recreation. Models that assume more permeable habitat to tortoise connectivity reveal much broader linkages, but approximately 700 km2 of habitat within the minimum linkages are already at risk of permanent habitat loss through solar energy development. Additional conservation of occupied habitat adjacent to the minimum linkages and existing TCAs would provide security against edge effects and population declines within conservation areas, especially given limitations in existing reserve architecture. Application of these linkage models will require refinement at the local level, and questions remain about the ultimate ability of a conservation network based on these models to support viable tortoise populations and accommodate climate change. Nevertheless, conservation decisions cannot be delayed while awaiting final answers to all relevant questions. In areas proposed for permanent habitat conversion, critical linkages may be severed before they are protected. Key Words.connectivity; conservation; habitat fragmentation; least-cost corridor

INTRODUCTION Habitat loss and fragmentation are prevalent threats to biodiversity (Yiming and Wilcove 2005; Venter et al. 2006). Fragmented, isolated populations are subject to demographic, environmental, and genetic forces that can act independently or together to create a vortex of extinction (Wilcox and Murphy 1985; Gilpin and Soul 1986; Fagan and Holmes 2006). Connecting protected areas with linkages is a way to increase the effective area of reserves and the population size of at-risk species (Crooks and Sanjayan 2006). In addition to the benefits of buffering small or low-density populations in protected areas, preservation of natural levels of connectivity between these areas may be critical to facilitate gene flow and to prevent habitat specialization and genetic divergence between otherwise isolated populations (Frankham 2006). Preserving connectivity also may allow species to adapt to or allow for natural range shifts in response to changing environmental conditions (Meffe and Carroll 1994; Krosby et al. 2010). Therefore, protected areas by themselves may not provide adequate long-term protection to biodiversity without considering the context of the reserve, its shape, and the matrix of the surroundings, which may contain a variety of habitats of different quality (Ricketts 2001; Prugh et al. 2008; Prevedello and Vieira 2010). A wellconnected network of reserves increases chances of
Copyright 2013. Roy C. Averill-Murray. All Rights Reserved.

maintaining viable populations of a particular species over a single reserve or isolated reserves (e.g., Carroll et al. 2003). The Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) was listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 1990 due to reports of population declines across the species distribution (see Berry and Medica [1995] for evidence of declines within local populations, but see also Bury and Corn [1995] for alternative interpretations of widespread declines) and numerous perceived threats across its range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). The historic distribution of the Mojave Desert Tortoise was relatively continuous across its range, broken only by major topographic barriers, such as Death Valley, California, and the Spring Mountains, Nevada (Germano et al. 1994; Nussear et al. 2009). The foundation of desert tortoise conservation and recovery across this landscape consists of 12 designated critical habitat units, which range in area from 221 to 4,130 km2. Critical habitat, in addition to National Park Service lands and other conservation areas or easements managed for desert tortoises, constitutes the primary component of tortoise conservation areas (TCAs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). The minimum reserve size recommended to preserve viable populations was estimated as 2,590 km2 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994), and only four critical habitat units meet this threshold. Given that the quality of conserved habitat

Averill-Murray et al.Desert Tortoise Population Connectivity

can be affected by factors present outside a preserves boundary (Harrison and Bruna 1999), optimal reserve shape would be circular to minimize the perimeter and potential edge effects relative to the area. However, management practicalities resulted in all critical habitat units having complex perimeters, often with narrow extensions or projections into relatively unprotected habitat. Population viability analyses indicate that, while focused management to improve adult tortoise survival could be effective in reversing population declines, the loss of large blocks of habitat in adjacent areas would be a major setback for population recovery (Doak et al. 1994; see also Reed et al. 2009). Similar analyses led to the recommendation that reserves should contain at least 10,000 adult tortoises to allow persistence > 350 y (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). During the three most recent years of monitoring for which data are available, estimated abundances in only three (in 2009 and 2010) to five (in 2008) of the critical habitat units met this target (McLuckie et al. 2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). However, some units share boundaries and form contiguous blocks (Fig. 1), and three such blocks in California include combined abundances of over 10,000 adult tortoises (Fremont-Kramer/SuperiorCronese, Fenner/Chemehuevi, and Pinto Mountains/ Joshua Tree National Park/Chuckwalla). Concentrated management of protected areas, especially those that fail to meet minimum area or abundance guidelines, has been recommended to increase desert tortoise populations, but managing the habitat matrix between protected areas is also important (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, 2011). Habitat loss within the matrix has been increasing recently from anthropogenic pressures such as utility-scale renewable energy development (Lovich and Ennen 2011), and proposals exist for other habitat-destructive activities such as expansion of military training lands, high-speed rail lines, and new airport construction. Low-mobility species like the Mojave Desert Tortoise require corridors that contain habitat attributes within the matrix for sustaining individuals for extended periods or even multi-generational populations (corridor dwellers), in contrast to species that may pass through corridors between protected areas in days or weeks, especially at large spatial scales (Beier and Loe 1992). As a result, even though individual desert tortoises can make longdistance movements (Berry 1986; Edwards et al. 2004), we rarely expect desert tortoises in one protected area to traverse a long, narrow green strip (e.g., more narrow than that necessary to support an individuals annual activity) of preserved Mojave Desert habitat, with potentially habitat-degrading edge effects, to another protected area several kilometers distant (as opposed to tortoises moving several meters through a narrow barrier, such as through a culvert below a highway; Boarman et al. 1998). In this study, we integrated assessments of habitat potential and anthropogenic effects to model existing suitable habitat for the Mojave Desert Tortoise. We used this suitable habitat layer to model linkages between TCAs using least-cost corridor analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data.All data used in our analyses came from previously published sources: 1) TCAs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011; compiled from multiple sources including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Clark County, Nevada); 2) U.S.

TABLE 1. Pairs of conservation areas between which habitat linkages for the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) were identified with least-cost corridor models. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ord-Rodman Fremont-Kramer Superior-Cronese Ord-Rodman Superior-Cronese Superior-Cronese Pinto Mountains Chuckwalla Chemehuevi Ivanpah Ivanpah Ivanpah Desert Tortoise Conservation Center Desert Tortoise Conservation Center Death Valley National Park (Greenwater Valley) Mormon Mesa Desert National Wildlife Refuge Beaver Dam Slope Beaver Dam Slope Joshua Tree National Park Ord-Rodman Ord-Rodman Mojave National Preserve Ivanpah Death Valley National Park (west) Chemehuevi Chemehuevi Ivanpah Death Valley National Park (Greenwater Valley) Piute-El Dorado Desert Tortoise Conservation Center Desert National Wildlife Refuge Piute-Eldorado Mormon Mesa Lake Mead National Recreation Area Lake Mead National Recreation Area Gold Butte-Pakoon Upper Virgin River

Herpetological Conservation and Biology

Geological Surveys (USGS) desert tortoise habitat potential model (Nussear et al. 2009); 3) The Nature Conservancys Mojave Ecoregional Assessment (Randall et al. 2010. Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment. Available from http://conserveonline.org/ workspaces/mojave/documents/mojave-desertecoregiona al-2010/@@view.html [Accessed 10 January 2012]); 4) The Nature Conservancys Sonoran Desert Ecoregional Assessment (Conservation Biology Institute. 2009. A framework for effective conservation management of the Sonoran Desert in California. Available from http://static.consbio.org/media/reports/files/Sonoran Framework_ January_20091.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2012]); and 5) the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortiums National Landcover Dataset: 2006 (NLCD; Fry et al. 2011). Modeling suitable habitat.The USGS model of historical habitat probability for the Mojave Desert Tortoise used presence data and a set of environmental variables to predict potential areas of desert tortoise habitat on a scale of 01 throughout its geographic range at 1 km2 resolution. The model did not account for anthropogenic changes that have altered relatively highpotential habitat into areas with lower potential. We therefore used the NLCD developed-areas layer and The Nature Conservancy's "Highly Converted Areas" for the Mojave ecoregion (Randall et al. op. cit.) and Conservation Category D areas for the Sonoran ecoregion (Conservation Biology Institute op. cit.) to reclassify developed areas where tortoises cannot or are less likely to occur to a lower habitat potential, as described below. The highly converted and category D layers depict urban, suburban, and agricultural lands that have been heavily altered. The Nature Conservancys ecoregional assessments were done as hexagon rasters of approximately 2.6 km2, which are appropriate at scales greater than 1:250,000 (Randall et al. op. cit; Conservation Biology Institute op. cit). To make the three primary datasets analytically comparable, we resampled all datasets to the same 100 m grid-cell resolution, as is commonly done with GIS datasets. We resampled the USGS habitat potential model from its 1 km grid-cell size to a 100 m grid cell with a nearest-neighbor approach using the Resample tool in ArcGIS (ESRI, Redlands, California, USA). The Nature Conservancys Ecoregional Assessment dataset was available as hexagonal units approximately 2.5 km2 in area as vector (polygon) files. To be compatible with our analysis, we rasterized the output to a 100 m grid cell. We downsampled the NLCD from 30 m using ArcGIS's Aggregate tool, setting the aggregation technique to Maximum. This setting took the maximum cell value from the source when determining the new value for the output cell. We reclassified habitat potential values based on anthropogenic features from the datasets described above. We assigned areas within the NLCD as 0 habitat potential using a series of ArcGIS conditional (if/else Con) statements if they were classified as highintensity developed or medium-intensity developed. The high-intensity developed category includes highly developed areas where impervious surfaces account for 80100% of the total cover. The medium-intensity developed category includes areas where impervious surfaces account for 5079% of the total cover; these areas most commonly include single-family housing units. We assumed that the low-intensity developed category, which includes areas where impervious surfaces account for 2049% percent of total cover, reduces tortoise occupancy potential below the baseline threshold for natural habitat without necessarily eliminating all use, so we assigned scores of 0.3 to these areas if the USGS habitat potential value was greater than or equal to 0.3. We reclassified areas categorized by The Nature Conservancy as "highly converted" and category D to 0 habitat potential; the highly converted layer depicts urban, suburban, and agricultural lands that have been heavily altered. Areas not affected by these anthropogenic features retained their underlying score from the USGS habitat model. We also identified areas of contiguous non-zero cells less than a cumulative area of 1 km2. We classified these areas as 0 habitat potential because they are isolated patches that are disconnected from contiguous habitat and are capable of supporting few tortoises (e.g., fewer than 14 adult tortoises on average; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). Figure 1 depicts the resulting Suitable Habitat model. For discrete estimations of habitat area (i.e., to convert the probability model to presence/absence), we clipped the model to the 0.5 habitat-probability threshold based on 0.5 prevalence in the model dataset (Liu et al. 2005; Ken Nussear, pers. comm. 2009). Least-cost corridor model simulation.Least-cost path analysis uses a raster-based algorithm that weighs the minimal cost distance between source and target cells. We used five basic steps to finding least-cost corridor networks in our study landscape (cf. Sawyer et al. 2011): (1) Select the specific source and destination points; (2) create a spatially-explicit resistance surface that is weighted according to facilitating or hindering effects on the movement process; (3) calculate a minimum accumulated cost surface over the resistance surface from all cells in the study area for both the source and destination features (treating each feature as a source), creating two raster maps where every cell is assigned a value that represents the lowest possible accumulative cost from the feature to each cell; (4) use these two accumulative cost outputs to find the sum of

Averill-Murray et al.Desert Tortoise Population Connectivity

FIGURE 1. Current predicted Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat adapted from Nussear et al. (2009).

the two surfaces at each cell. The sum of the two raster costs identifies for each cell location the least-cost path from one source to another source that passes through the cell location (ESRI. 2011. Creating a least cost corridor. ArcGIS Desktop Help 10.0. Available from http://help.arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index. html#//009z00000024000000.htm [Accessed 9 April 2012]); and (5) apply a maximum accumulated distance threshold to define a corridor (as opposed to a single line resulting from a least-cost path analysis). Nineteen pairs of TCAs served as source/destination polygons for our least-cost corridor analysis (Table 1). We modeled connectivity between TCA pairs through cells of habitat capable of supporting tortoise occupancy under the premise that the Mojave Desert Tortoise is a corridor dweller. High-probability habitat corresponds to low cost for tortoise occupancy, so we inverted the habitat suitability surface using ESRIs Spatial Analyst arithmetic functions for use as a cost surface. Using the source polygons and the cost surface, we created a cost-

distance surface for each of the source polygons defined in a pair (two surfaces per pair). These surfaces represent the accumulative cost of traveling over the cost surface from each cell back to the edge of the source polygon. We created these surfaces with ESRIs Spatial Analyst CostDistance function. We used ESRIs Spatial Analyst Corridor function to sum the two accumulative costs for the two input accumulative-cost rasters, thereby identifying, for each cell location, the least-cost path from the source to the destination that passes through that cell location. Because of the varying cost between each TCA pair (one pair might be geographically adjacent to one another while another pair might be separated by > 100 km), we applied a standard threshold percentage to normalize the outputs. Through an iterative process of reviewing threshold outputs, we chose a standard distance threshold of 1% for each corridor output. The associated range of cost-distance values were calculated from the total range of corridor values and applied using ESRIs Spatial Analyst Con

Herpetological Conservation and Biology

FIGURE 2. Least-cost corridors between tortoise conservation areas (Base model). Each corridor includes the lowest 1% cost-distance paths between tortoise conservation areas (TCAs), where the relative cost to tortoises increases from black to white. White patterns within TCAs are private inholdings within federal lands.

function. The output of this series of operations was a raster of the corridor from/to each TCA polygon, which includes the lowest 1% cost paths from one TCA to another. While overall movement resistance may be higher between two TCAs than between another pair, corridors between each TCA pair are important to population connectivity range-wide. Therefore, we normalized all

corridors from 01 using a custom script written in Python. We also inverted these rescaled corridor values to represent importance for connectivity rather than cost. We refer to the output from this process using the Suitable Habitat model as the Base model. The movement cost surface in the Base model assumes a 1:1 relationship between probability of tortoise occurrence in each pixel and resistance to connectivity. However, a

TABLE 2. Overlap (km2, %) of Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat in four least-cost corridor models with Department of Defense (DOD) lands, designated open off-highway-vehicle (OHV) recreation areas, and designated wilderness areas or Bureau of Land Management National Conservation Areas (NCAs). DOD 2,375 (13%) 0 -7,165 (16%) 0 -OHV 875 (5%) 0 -1,200 (3%) 0 -Wilderness/NCA 2,952 (17%) 4,260 (26%) 6,985 (16%) 7,145 (20%)

Base Base2 Binned Binned2

Averill-Murray et al.Desert Tortoise Population Connectivity

FIGURE 3. Least-cost corridors between tortoise conservation areas (TCAs; Base model), overlaid with Department of Defense (DoD) lands and open off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas, and showing designated wilderness areas and National Conservation Areas (NCAs) clipped to the linkages. Each corridor includes the lowest 1% cost-distance paths between TCAs, where the relative cost to tortoises increases from black to white. White patterns within TCAs are private inholdings within federal lands.

pixel of moderate probability (e.g., 0.7) may contribute equally to connectivity as a pixel of high probability (0.9) if both pixels allow some degree of population presence or individual movement, especially at a temporal scale of a tortoise generation (about 25 y). For example, 95% of cells with known presence in the USGS habitat model had scores greater than 0.7 (Nussear et al. 2009). Therefore, we compared the Base model to a Binned model in order to evaluate uncertainty in our choice of resistance values, as recommended by Beier et al. (2009) and Sawyer et al. (2011). We developed the cost surface for the Binned model by re-scoring all pixels 0.7 in the Base model to 1.0, values 0.500.69 to 0.6, values 0.100.49 to 0.3, and values < 0.1 to 0. Other land uses also may affect desert tortoise connectivity, but are not captured by NLCDs developed areas of The Nature Conservancys highly converted areas. Military training maneuvers and open-access off- highway-

vehicle (OHV) recreation are high-impact activities that limit tortoise abundance, especially in the long term with increasing use (Bury and Luckenbach 2002; Berry et al. 2006). Therefore, we assessed effects on linkages of converting all Department of Defense (DOD) lands and open OHV areas to 0 habitat probability (models Base2 and Binned2). RESULTS Suitable Habitat (i.e., current estimated habitat) for the Mojave Desert Tortoise totals 67,000 km2, 81% of the historic (i.e., unmanipulated USGS habitat model) estimated total of 83,138 km2. The area of Suitable Habitat within TCAs, including areas of overlap with DOD lands, is 45,340 km2 (68% of total current, 55% of total historic). Suitable Habitat within linkages connecting the TCAs in the Base model totals17,831 km2

Herpetological Conservation and Biology

TABLE 3. Percentage overlap of least-cost corridors based on four connectivity models between Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) conservation areas. Total habitat area within each linkage is given along the diagonal. Base 17,831 km2 74% 92% 70% Base2 81% 16,282 km2 90% 90% Binned 38% 34% 43,597 km2 79% Binned2 35% 41% 97% 35,629 km2

Base Base2 Binned Binned2

(27% current, 21% historic; Fig. 2). Several linkages are already severely constrained or impacted by DOD and open OHV area designations (Fig. 3, Table 2). Military training operations or high-intensity OHV recreation affect up to 18% of Suitable Habitat within linkages in the Base model. On the other hand, portions of some linkages (17%) are protected by wilderness or U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National

Conservation Area (NCA) designations (Fig. 3, Table 2). The Binned model had the effect of greatly lowering the resistance to tortoise occupancy, thereby increasing the amount of area included in the lowest 1% cost paths between TCAs (Fig. 4). Linkages in the Base model included only 38% of Suitable Habitat in the Binned model, while the Binned linkages included 92% of Base linkage habitat (Table 3). The total area of habitat within

FIGURE 4. Binned model: least-cost corridors between tortoise conservation areas (TCAs), overlaid with Department of Defense (DoD) lands and open off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas, and showing designated wilderness areas and National Conservation Areas (NCAs) clipped to the linkages. Each corridor includes the lowest 1% cost-distance paths between TCAs, where the relative cost to tortoises increases from black to white. White patterns within TCAs are private inholdings within federal lands.

Averill-Murray et al.Desert Tortoise Population Connectivity

FIGURE 5. Base2 model: least-cost corridors between tortoise conservation areas (TCAs), overlaid with Department of Defense (DoD) lands and open off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas, and showing designated wilderness areas and National Conservation Areas (NCAs) clipped to the linkages. Each corridor includes the lowest 1% cost-distance paths between TCAs, where the relative cost to tortoises increases from black to white. White patterns within TCAs are private inholdings within federal lands.

linkages in the Binned model totals 43,597 km2 (65% current, 52% historic). Military training operations or high-intensity OHV recreation affect 19% of habitat within the linkages in the Binned model (Table 2). Current wilderness or NCA designations protect 16% of linkages in the Binned model (Table 2). Excluding DOD and OHV designations from the cost surface reduced total habitat areas by 8.7% and 18.3% in the Base2 and Binned2 models, respectively (Table 3), although a greater proportion of the linkages is protected by existing wilderness or NCA designations (Table 2). Excluding these areas resulted in expansion of remaining linkages between TCAs, especially in California in the Base2 model (Figs. 5,,6). Overall, linkages in the Base model overlapped 81% of Suitable Habitat in the Base2 model, while the Binned model included 97% of Suitable Habitat in the Binned2 model (Table 3). Differences

from 100% in proportion of habitat in the Base and Binned models that overlap the smaller Base2 and Binned2 models reflect shifts in the 1% cost surfaces. For example, in the Base2 model more of the area east of the Ord-Rodman and Superior-Cronese critical habitat units was important for connectivity, and new linkage strands were identified between the Chemehuevi and Chuckwalla critical habitat units (Fig. 5). DISCUSSION Successfully conserving the Mojave Desert Tortoise will entail managing not just conservation areas alone, but also the connections between these areas (i.e., managing the matrix between reserves: Fahrig 2001; Prevedello and Vieira 2010). Some TCAs are contiguous with others and together may contain viable

Herpetological Conservation and Biology

FIGURE 6. Binned2 model: least-cost corridors between tortoise conservation areas (TCAs), overlaid with Department of Defense (DoD) lands and open off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas, and showing designated wilderness areas and National Conservation Areas (NCAs) clipped to the linkages. Each corridor includes the lowest 1% cost-distance paths between TCAs, where the relative cost to tortoises increases from black to white. White patterns within TCAs are private inholdings within federal lands.

numbers of desert tortoises, but even these contiguous blocks are adjacent to smaller, more isolated TCAs. Therefore, the function of the collective TCA network could be solidified by ensuring that all remain connected. In cases where much of the matrix between reserves remains undeveloped, managing the matrix to increase permeability and occupancy will be easier than restoring corridors after development has occurred (Prugh et al. 2008; Prededello and Vieira 2010). In addition, most wildlife, including the Mojave Desert Tortoise, does not occur at uniform densities across landscapes (Krzysik 2002). The extent to which populations may fluctuate asynchronously, such as localized declines attributed to drought or predation events (Peterson 1994; Longshore et al. 2003; see also the model of recruitment in chaotic environments in Morafka 1994) even within designated conservation

areas, increases risks to population viability and places increased emphasis on preserving population connectivity through the surrounding habitat matrix. Even under an assumption that TCAs are source habitats surrounded by sinks, maintaining or improving conditions within sinks/linkages can be as important to regional viability as protecting source TCAs because of their effect on neighboring source habitat (Carroll et al. 2003). Consequently, the effectiveness of TCAs will be improved if they are connected with functional habitat to ensure desert tortoise population persistence (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, 2011). Ideally, linkages between TCAs would also be wide enough to buffer against detrimental edge effects (Beier et al. 2008), a recommendation applicable also to the TCAs, themselves (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Averill-Murray et al.Desert Tortoise Population Connectivity

While specific management is needed within TCAs, these areas provide only an initial framework upon which to focus recovery efforts, especially given uncertainties related to the effects of climate change on Mojave Desert Tortoise populations and distribution (Barrows et al. 2011; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Temperatures are projected to change relatively quickly within desert ecosystems. To keep pace with changes from current temperature regimes within the current century, desert wildlife populations or species would need to shift their distributions at approximately 0.7 km/year (Loarie et al. 2009). At this rate, the current climate would cross each critical habitat unit (ranging in latitudinal extent of approximately 33267 km) within 23187 years. Notwithstanding potential elevational shifts by tortoise populations in response to climate change, which may be constrained in many areas as a result of geologic limitations on burrow construction, preserving connectivity between TCAs may allow shifts in the species distribution and allow for future flexibility in refocusing management to ensure long-term recovery (Crooks and Sanjayan 2006; Krosby et al. 2010). Connectivity conservation also is integral to maintaining genetic variability and ecological heterogeneity within and among populations of widely distributed species. Genetic analyses suggest that, historically, levels of gene flow among subpopulations of the Mojave Desert Tortoise were high, corresponding to high levels of habitat connectivity (Murphy et al. 2007; Hagerty 2008). All recent genetic studies of the Mojave Desert Tortoise have suggested that its population structure is characterized by isolation-bydistance; populations at the farthest extremes of the distribution are most differentiated, but a gradient of genetic differentiation occurs between those populations across the range (Britten et al. 1997; Murphy et al. 2007; Hagerty and Tracy 2010). This isolation-by-distance genetic structure across the relatively continuous historic distribution of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Germano et al. 1994; Nussear et al. 2009) indicates that gene flow generally occurs (or historically occurred) according to a continuous-distribution model (Allendorf and Luikart 2007), as opposed to a metapopulation or stepping-stone model where individual tortoises move from one patch of suitable habitat across less suitable or non-habitat to another patch of suitable habitat. Our modeling approach was similar to that of Hagerty et al. (2011), who modeled historic gene flow between populations across the range of the species across a cost surface based on the original (historic) USGS habitat model. Gene flow historically occurred in a diffuse pattern across the landscape unless otherwise constrained to more narrow, concentrated pathways created by topographic barriers (e.g., around the Spring Mountains in southern Nevada; Hagerty et al. 2011). Linkages between conservation areas are needed to conserve historic genetic gradation, thereby preventing habitat specialization and genetic divergence between populations (Frankham 2006). Where gene flow is constrained by topographic barriers, conservation of such concentrated pathways or linkages is especially important. For gene flow to reliably occur across the range, and for populations within existing conservation areas to be buffered against detrimental effects of low numbers or density, populations need to be connected by areas of habitat occupied by tortoises. Low levels of genetic differentiation in Mojave Desert Tortoises have been detected across even relatively recent and narrow anthropogenic impacts on the landscape (Latch et al. 2011). Pairs of tortoises from opposite sides of a road exhibited significantly greater genetic differentiation than pairs from the same side of a road (Latch et al. 2011), raising even greater concerns for population fragmentation from larger scale habitat loss. Assumptions and limitations.Our assessment of important areas within which to preserve connectivity of Mojave Desert Tortoise populations is limited by shortcomings in our knowledge. We assumed that potential tortoise occupancy was accurately reflected by the USGS habitat model, as modified by our interpretation of the altered-habitat datasets, and that linkages of high-probability habitat between existing TCAs will help sustain viable populations across the range of the species. Implicit in this assumption is that various land uses or impacts occurring on the landscape (e.g., unpaved roads, exotic plant invasions) that were not explicitly included in the geospatial data we used do not impede connectivity of tortoise populations. We evaluated the effect of this assumption relative to largescale potential impacts of high-intensity land uses (military training maneuvers and open OHV recreation), and additional areas emerged that may be important to connectivity. Least-cost path analyses provide only a snapshot of current habitat conditions and are uninformative about demographic processes or how individuals actually move through a landscape (Noss and Daly 2006; Taylor et al. 2006). We assumed that a 1% cost surface would identify linkages wide enough to provide functional connectivity between TCAs. However, application of different resistance values from the underlying habitat model greatly influenced the total area and configuration of the 1% cost surface. Indeed, limiting the cost surface to the lowest 1% is an arbitrary choice (Sawyer et al. 2011). The mean model score for all cells with known tortoise presence in the USGS habitat model was 0.84, and 95% of cells with known presence had scores greater than 0.7 (Nussear et al. 2009). Therefore, connectivity between tortoise

10

Herpetological Conservation and Biology

populations (TCAs) may occur more broadly than estimated in the Base model. The more permeable Binned model identified linkages 245% larger in area than those in the Base model, while the linkages in the Binned2 model were 219% larger than those in the Base2 model. Limited guidance is available for determining precise linkage widths, but minimum widths for corridor dwellers such as the Mojave Desert Tortoise should be substantially larger than a home range diameter (Beier et al. 2008). Inevitably, however, questions will be asked about what is the minimum width for a particular desert tortoise linkage, what is the relevant home range size from which to estimate that minimum width, and what are the minimum sampling considerations in estimating home ranges (cf. Harless et al. 2010). We agree with Beier et al. (2008) that this is analogous to asking an engineer, what are the fewest number of rivets that might keep this wing on the airplane? A more appropriate question for conservation is what is the narrowest width that is not likely to be regretted after the adjacent area is converted to human use? Managers and policy-makers must realize that conservation is not primarily a set-aside issue that can be dealt with by reserving a minimal percentage or amount of the landscape; rather, it is a pervasive issue that must be considered across the entire landscape (Franklin and Lindenmayer 2009). Management implications and recommendations. In general, land and wildlife managers should think about "corridors" between conservation areas that are large enough for resident tortoises to persist and to continue to interact with their neighbors within and outside broad habitat linkages, rather than expect that a more narrow band of habitat will allow an individual tortoise to move through it to the other side, breed with a tortoise on that side, and produce viable offspring that contribute to the next generation. Linkage integrity with sufficient habitat to support sustainable populations is important for Mojave Desert Tortoises and other corridor dwellers to support connectivity between core reserves (cf. Barrows et al. 2011). Given the underlying geospatial data, linkages in the Base2 model illustrate a minimum connection of habitat for Mojave Desert Tortoises between TCA pairs and therefore represent priority areas for conservation of population connectivity. However, large areas within these linkages are at risk of permanent habitat loss as a result of solar energy development. Utility-scale solar development will require 831 km2 of land by 2030 to meet the reasonably foreseeable development scenario within the entire states of California and Nevada (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy 2012). To meet this need, BLM has identified 39,830 km2 of potentially developable public lands throughout these states (not all within Mojave Desert Tortoise habitat), including 866 km2 of proposed solar energy zones (SEZs) within which solar energy production would be prioritized and facilitated. Meanwhile, projects totaling 190 km2 and 1,470 km2 had already been approved or were pending, respectively, across BLM land within the range of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy 2012). Relatively little linkage area would be consumed by the proposed SEZs (40 km2), but 37 km2 of approved and 703 km2 of pending projects overlap linkages in the Base2 model, with some linkages at particular risk (Fig. 7). Even though substantial uncertainty surrounds the ultimate development footprint of pending solar development projects (or other proposed projects, including wind energy development), a separate analysis found that between 2,000 km2 and 7,400 km2 of lower conservation value land could meet Californias renewable energy goal by up to seven times over (Cameron et al. 2012). This suggests that renewable energy goals can be met without compromising the conservation of important Mojave Desert Tortoise habitat. The Binned2 model includes blocks of contiguous habitat outside the Base2 linkage network, and many such areas likely contain substantial numbers of Mojave Desert Tortoises. Managers should consider additional conservation of occupied habitat adjacent to the Base2 linkages and existing TCAs to provide security against edge effects and population declines, especially given limitations previously identified in the existing reserve architecture. For example, even though use of DOD lands may be subject to change depending on national security needs, the value of military lands to conservation has long been recognized (Stein et al. 2008), and DOD-managed habitat that is unaffected by military training operations adds to the conservation base. Of additional note are blocks of habitat at the northern extent of the Mojave Desert Tortoises range, which may be of particular relevance for additional evaluation to determine more precisely how the modeled linkages will accommodate climate change (Beier et al. 2008). Application of models from this study will require refinement at the local level and at a higher-resolution scale than the available geospatial data (i.e., finer resolution than 1 km2) to account for on-the-ground limitations to tortoise occupancy and movement either not reflected in the geospatial data used here or as a result of errors in the land cover data we used to identify Suitable Habitat (Beier et al. 2009). For example, habitat connections through the northern end and across the boundary of the Chuckwalla critical habitat unit may be more limited by rugged topography than suggested by Figure 1 (Jody Fraser and Pete Sorensen, pers. comm.),

11

Averill-Murray et al.Desert Tortoise Population Connectivity

FIGURE 7. Least-cost corridors (Base2 model) between tortoise conservation areas (TCAs) relative to approved solar development projects, pending solar development projects, and solar energy zones. Each corridor includes the lowest 1% cost-distance paths between TCAs, where the relative cost to tortoises increases from black to white. White patterns within TCAs are private inholdings within federal lands.

thereby placing greater potential importance on the linkage identified on the north end of the critical habitat unit in the Binned2 model. In addition, more detailed or spatially explicit population viability analyses based on regional population and distribution patterns are needed to evaluate the ability of a conservation network such as that modeled here to ensure long-term persistence of Mojave Desert Tortoise populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011; e.g., Carroll et al. 2003). While there is much still to be learned about the science and application of connectivity, land managers cannot wait for research to resolve all relevant questions before focusing effort on enhancing connectivity. Instead, science and management must proceed in parallel with the flexibility to modify future management in the light of new knowledge (Lovejoy 2006). In areas proposed for essentially permanent habitat conversion, such as by large-scale development, there is the risk that

critical linkages will be severed before they are protected (Morrison and Reynolds 2006). For species with long generation times like the Mojave Desert Tortoise, this risk is compounded by the fact that we are not likely to detect a problem with a population until well after we have reduced the habitat below its extinction threshold (Fahrig 2001). Acknowledgments.Discussion with Linda Allison, Ashleigh Blackford, Brian Croft, Diane Elam, Kimberleigh Field, and the Desert Tortoise Science Advisory Committee (Peter Hudson, Earl McCoy, Katherine Ralls, Michael Reed, and Robert Steidl) contributed to the development of this manuscript. Additional review and comments by Todd Esque, Kimberleigh Field, Michael Reed, and Andrew Walde improved the manuscript. We thank Lisa Benvenuti at the Redlands Institute for her excellent map-making

12

Herpetological Conservation and Biology

skills. The findings and conclusions in this article are Carroll, C., R.F. Noss, P.C. Paquet, and N.H. those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the Schumaker. 2003. Use of population viability analysis views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecological Applications 13:1773 LITERATURE CITED 1789. Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan. 2006. Connectivity Allendorf, F.W., and G. Luikart. 2007. Conservation and conservation: maintaining connections for nature. Pp. the Genetics of Populations. Blackwell, Malden, 119 In Connectivity Conservation. Crooks, K.R., and Massachusetts, USA. M. Sanjayan (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Barrows, C.W., K.D. Fleming, and M.F. Allen. 2011. Cambridge, UK. Identifying habitat linkages to maintain connectivity Doak, D., P. Kareiva, and B. Klepetka. 1994. Modeling for corridor dwellers in a fragmented landscape. population viability for the Desert Tortoise in the Journal of Wildlife Management 75:682691. western Mojave Desert. Ecological Applications Beier, P., and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating 4:446460. impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Edwards, T., E.W. Stitt, C.R. Schwalbe, and D.E. Society Bulletin 20:434440. Swann. 2004. Gopherus agassizii (Desert Tortoise). Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and S.L. Newell. 2009. Movement. Herpetological Review 35:381382. Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for Fagan, W.F., and E.E. Holmes. 2006. Quantifying the designing wildlife linkages. Ecological Applications extinction vortex. Ecology Letters 9:5160. 19:20672077. Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and W.D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in Biological Conservation 100:6574. the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland Frankham, R. 2006. Genetics and landscape linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836851. connectivity. Pp. 7296 In Connectivity Conservation. Berry, K.H., T.Y. Bailey, and K.M. Anderson. 2006. Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan (Eds.). Cambridge Attributes of Desert Tortoise populations at the University Press, Cambridge, UK. National Training Center, Central Mojave Desert, Franklin, J.F., and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2009. Importance California, USA. Journal of Arid Environments of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. 67:165191. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Berry, K.H., and P.A. Medica. 1995. Desert Tortoises in 106:349350. the Mojave and Colorado deserts. Pages 135137 In Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham. 2011. Completion Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Animals, and Ecosystems. LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Farris, conterminous United States. Photogrammetric C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac (Eds.). U.S. Engineering and Remote Sensing 77:858864. Department of the Interior, National Biological Germano, D.J., R.B. Bury, T.C. Esque, T.H. Fritts, and Service, Washington, DC, USA. P.A. Medica. 1994. Range and habitat of the Desert Boarman, W.I., M.L. Beigel, G.C. Goodlett, and M. Tortoise. Pp. 5772 In Biology of the North American Sazaki. 1998. A passive integrated transponder system Tortoises. Bury, R.B., and D.J. Germano (Eds.). for tracking animal movements. Wildlife Society National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Bulletin 26:886891. Research 13, Washington, DC, USA. Britten, H.B., B.R. Riddle, P.F. Brussard, R. Marlow, Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soul. 1986. Minimum viable and T.E. Lee. 1997. Genetic delineation of populations: processes of species extinction. Pp. 1934 management units for the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus In Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and agassizii, in northeastern Mojave Desert. Copeia Diversity. Soul, M.E. (Ed.). Sinauer Associates, 1997:523530. Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. Bury, R.B., and P.S. Corn. 1995. Have desert tortoises Hagerty, B.E. 2008. Ecological genetics of the Mojave undergone a long-term decline in abundance? Wildlife Desert Tortoise. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Society Bulletin 23:4147. Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA. 226 p. Bury, R.B., and R.A. Luckenbach. 2002. Comparison of Hagerty, B.E., K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, and C.R. Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) populations in an Tracy. 2011. Making molehills out of mountains: unused and off-road vehicle area in the Mojave Desert. landscape genetics of the Mojave Desert Tortoise. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:457463. Landscape Ecology 26:267280. Cameron, D.R., B.S. Cohen, and S.A. Morrison. 2012. Hagerty, B.E., and C.R. Tracy. 2010. Defining An approach to enhance the conservationpopulation structure for the Mojave Desert Tortoise. compatibility of solar energy development. PloS ONE Conservation Genetics 11:17951807. 7(6):e38347. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038437.

13

Averill-Murray et al.Desert Tortoise Population Connectivity

Harless, M.L., A.D. Walde, D.K. Delaney, L.L. Pater, and W.K. Hayes. 2010. Sampling considerations for improving home range estimates of Desert Tortoises: effects of estimator, sampling regime, and sex. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5:374387. Harrison, S., and E. Bruna. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography 22:225232. Krosby, M., J. Tewksbury, N.M. Haddad, and J. Hoekstra. 2010. Ecological connectivity for a changing climate. Conservation Biology 24:16861689. Krzysik, A.J. 2002. A landscape sampling protocol for estimating distribution and density patterns of Desert Tortoises at multiple spatial scales. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:366379. Latch, E.K., W.I. Boarman, A. Walde, and R.C. Fleischer. 2011. Fine-scale analysis reveals cryptic landscape genetic structure in Desert Tortoises. PLoS ONE 6:e27794. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027794. Liu, C., P.M. Berry, T.P. Dawson, and R.G. Pearson. 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28:385 393. Loarie, S.R., P.B. Duffy, H. Hamilton, G.P. Asner, C.B. Field, and D.D. Ackerly. 2009. The velocity of climate change. Nature 462:10521055. Longshore, K.M., J.R. Jaeger, and J.M. Sappington. 2003. Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) survival at two eastern Mojave Desert sites: death by short-term drought? Journal of Herpetology 37:169177. Lovejoy, T. 2006. Introduction: dont fence me in. Pp. 447449 In Connectivity Conservation. Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Lovich, J.E., and J.R. Ennen. 2011. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the Desert Southwest, United States. BioScience 61:982 992. McLuckie, A.M., P.G. Emblidge, and R.A. Fridell. 2010. Regional Desert Tortoise monitoring in the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve, 2009. Utah Division of Wildlife Resource Publication 10-13. Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll. 1994. The design of conservation reserves. Pp. 265304 In Principles of Conservation Biology. Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll (Eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. Morafka, D.J. 1994. Neonates: missing links in the life histories of North American tortoises. Pp. 161173 In Biology of North American Tortoises. Bury, R.B., and D.J. Germano (Eds.). National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13, Washington, DC, USA. Morrison, S.A., and M.D. Reynolds. 2006. Where to draw the line: integrating feasibility into connectivity planning. Pp. 536554 In Connectivity Conservation. Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Murphy, R.W., K.H. Berry, T. Edwards, and A.M. McLuckie. 2007. A genetic assessment of the recovery units for the Mojave population of the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus agassizii. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6:229251. Noss, R.F., and K.M. Daly. 2006. Incorporating connectivity into broad-scale conservation planning. Pp. 587619 In Connectivity Conservation. Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Nussear, K.E., T.C. Esque, R.D. Inman, L. Gass, K.A. Thomas, C.S.A. Wallace, J.B. Blainey, D.M. Miller, and R.H. Webb. 2009. Modeling habitat of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Mojave and parts of the Sonoran deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2009-1102. 18 p. Peterson, C.C. 1994. Different rates and causes of high mortality in two populations of the threatened Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii. Biological Conservation 70:101108. Prevedello, J.A., and M.V. Vieira. 2010. Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:1205 1223. Prugh, L.R., K.E. Hodges, A.R.E. Sinclair, and J.S. Brashares. 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation of fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:2077020775. Reed, J.M., N. Fefferman, and R.C. Averill-Murray. 2009. Vital rate sensitivity analysis as a tool for assessing management actions for the Desert Tortoise. Biological Conservation 142:27102717. Ricketts, T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158:8799. Sawyer, S.C., C.W. Epps, and J.S. Brashares. 2011. Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do leastcost models reflect how animals use landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology 48:668678. Stein, B.A., C. Scott, and N. Benton. 2008. Federal lands and endangered species: the role of military and other federal lands in sustaining biodiversity. BioScience 58:339347. Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, and K.A. With. 2006. Landscape connectivity: a return to basics. Pp. 2943 In Connectivity Conservation. Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. US Bureau of Land Management and US Department of Energy. 2012. Final programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for solar energy development in six southwestern states. FES 12-24. DOE/EIS-0403.

14

Herpetological Conservation and Biology

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Mojave population of the Desert Tortoise. Federal Register 55:1217812191. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Desert Tortoise (Mojave population) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California and Nevada Region, Sacramento, California, USA. Venter, O., N.N. Brodeur, L. Nemiroff, B. Belland, I.J. Dolinsek, and J.W.A. Grant. Threats to endangered species in Canada. BioScience 56:903910. Wiens, J.A. 2006. Introduction: connectivity research What are the issues? Pp. 2327 In Connectivity Conservation. Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Wilcox, B.A., and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879887. Yiming, L., and D.S. Wilcove. 2005. Threats to vertebrate species in China and the United States. BioScience 55:147153.

ROY C. AVERILL-MURRAY is the Desert Tortoise Recovery Coordinator for the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Reno, Nevada, USA. He oversees the recovery office in coordinating research, monitoring, and recovery plan implementation for the threatened Mojave Desert Tortoise. He has published articles and book chapters on various aspects of the ecology and management of both the Mojave Desert Tortoise and the Sonoran Desert Tortoise. Roy has degrees in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences from Texas A&M University (B.S.) and the University of Arizona (M.S.). (Photographed by Kimberleigh J. Field)

CATHERINE R. DARST is the Recovery Biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Desert Tortoise Recovery Office in Ventura, California, USA. Cat's work focuses on recovery plan implementation and research coordination, including developing collaborative planning processes and spatial decision support for the Mojave Desert Tortoise. Cat received her undergraduate degrees from the University of California at Davis and her Ph.D. in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior from the University of Texas at Austin. (Photographed by Ashleigh Blackford)

NATHAN STROUT is the Technology Manager for the Redlands Institute, University of Redlands in Redlands, California, USA. He is responsible for managing the technical design and development of projects at the Redlands Institute and a team of technical staff including programmers, analysts, and IT support staff. His work includes GIS research and analysis, web and desktop application development, and project management. Nathan also serves as adjunct faculty in the Master of Science in Geographic Information Systems (MS GIS) at the University of Redlands. Nathan received his undergraduate degree in Environmental Science and a M.S. in GIS from the University of Redlands. (Photographed by Stephen Daugherty)

MARTIN L. WONG is a GIS Analyst for the Redlands Institute, University of Redlands in Redlands, California. He is responsible for supporting students, faculty, and staff at the Redlands Institute and the Environmental Studies and MSGIS departments in their geospatial data needs. His work includes researching, acquiring, and geoprocessing data, writing scripts and tools using Python and C#, and producing maps and reports. Martin received his undergraduate degree in Geography from the University of California at Santa Barbara. (Photographed by Susie Kim)

15

November 6, 2013 Notice of Violations of the ESA

ATTACHMENT 6

EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

) ) Application for Certification ) Docket No. 08-AFC-13 for the Calico Solar Project ) (formerly SES Solar 1) ) ____________________________________)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2010 1:00 P.M.

Reported by: John Cota

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP (916) 851-5976

75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certainly, of the committee. We have been interested in the information that the translocation and relocation efforts at Fort Irwin can provide to us in this case. And I know that CURE --

Ms. Miles, did you consider her to be somebody that you would like to sponsor as a witness or -MS. MILES: I believe that she wanted to be not

necessarily represented by any party here. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: Okay. So I think rather

than lead off, which I could do, I'll simply ask Dr. Berry if she is wishes to make some preliminary comments, and then we will leave her open to questioning from the various parties. So would you like to make some preliminary remarks, Dr. Berry? DR. BERRY: Yes, I would.

I have looked at the translocation plan, and I have some comments about that. First, I would like to say that the project does not appear to be a carefully planned science-based project that will yield valuable and usable information for recovery of the state- and federally-listed populations of the Desert Tortoise. The translocation plan seems to be

hastily assembled, lacks basic and careful science, and it's not a rigorous, thoughtful plan.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Very little background information is presented and no supporting scientific or quantitative data on such important topics that are raised in the documents such as annual and perennial vegetation, soils and surficial geology. Primarily the writers of the plan present observational data, although they also draw on a USGS habitat model. The habitat model is a good model, but

it's not been validated to be accurate locally or appropriate for use at the proposed translocation sites. The second point I'd like to make is that the writers of the translocation plan used layers of assumption unsupported by scientific evidence, and I'd like to give some examples. And these include but are not

limited to such subjects as carrying capacity, phrases and topics like compromising a resident population, the potential spread of invasive alien plants such as Brassica tournefortii or the Sahara Mustard, distances that tortoises are likely to move, and likelihood of encountering a zero positive tortoise, zero positive specifically for mycoplasma agassizii. In the plan they mention a proposed buffer of 2.5 kilometers around a diseased or zero positive animal, and that kind of buffer is not supported by current evidence.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For example, in our Fort Irwin project and in our progress report for 2009 we found that translocated tortoises move a mean distance of 2.4 kilometers with a minimum of 275 meters and a maximum of 12.6 kilometers. Thus a translocated tortoise with that kind of buffer would be likely to come in contact with an infected tortoise. Now, another point is that the information presented in the translocation plan on health, diseases, and movements of tortoises indicate that the writers are only superficially acquainted with a very important material on health, diseases, and other topics of importance concerning the tortoise. For example, they haven't defined the use of the term "diseased." They say they're not going to We have translocated

translocate a diseased tortoise.

tortoises that have shell lesions, such as lesions of cutaneous dyskeratosis. They may be referring to

infectious diseases, but it's not clear in what they have written. They don't mention mycoplasma that's caused by the pathogen mycoplasma testudinium. So it's not clear on

whether they're going to test for that particular species of mycoplasma. And just 12 miles away we have clusters of

tortoises with mycoplasma testudinium, and it too is

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believed to be an infectious disease. Still another critical point is their proposal to place up to 185 translocated tortoises south of I-40 in the Ord Rodman Desert Wildlife Management Area. certainly raises a number of concerns. This

The westernmost

site, DWMA 1, which is a long-distance translocation area, borders on private lands, is within one and a half to two miles of agricultural developments near the Fort Cady Road, and within a few miles of Newberry Springs, which is an area that we know has dog packs. unsuitable habitat. The preparers of the plan wrote that it had, and I quote, "an inordinate number of carcasses, all within the same relative age class of roughly two to four years," which I'm assuming to mean dead two to four years, suggesting a die-off. Yet the preparers of the plan It's close to

didn't talk about how many carcasses, what the ages of the tortoises were, whether they were juveniles or adults. Why place tortoises here if there's been a die-off, and they talk of a die-off, especially when we don't know what the die-off is caused by. In another proposed translocation area, DWMA 2 south of I-40, again they note a die-off with high numbers of carcasses. So why place tortoises here if there's been

a die-off and the cause has been undetermined?

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Perhaps the area is not as high quality as the observers report. No information is offered on the food And no

supply of plants eaten by tortoises, for example.

information is given that these receiving areas will be fenced to protect tortoises from traveling into inappropriate habitat where they would be at high risk. I'd like to point out that both these sites are within 12 miles of a site where I've been conducting research on epidemiology of upper respiratory tract disease caused by mycoplasma agassizii and mycoplasma testudinium. This is a site with a high concentration of

animals with disease, and it's very possible that the DWMA site proposed for translocation also have sick tortoises. Now there's very little scientific evidence that translocation is a successful mitigation or minimization measure for Desert Tortoises. And that is a very

important point, because we all are supposed to be focusing on how to recover this threatened species. studies on translocations conducted to date have been short term and some have not demonstrated success if we measure success in terms of survival. A good example is the Fort Irwin project with which I am involved, and I have a major research project on health and disease associated with this project. We The

have -- I started, for example, in 2008 with translocating

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and being responsible for 158 tortoises in the spring. Since that time 49 percent of the tortoises have died. The deaths have continued from 2008 up through this month. And this year alone, 11.6 percent of the 68 tortoises that I had known to be alive in January have died. This is in contrast to tortoises at the Daggett epidemiology site where the death rate during the last eight months has only been two and a half percent, and at another one of my sites zero percent. So translocation

has not been a positive feature for these 158 animals. Translocation is also not recommended by the independent science advisors who prepared the Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, which was published and made available this month. And finally, the proposed plan mentioned that there will be, and describes, monitoring and annual reporting, but does not guarantee that the project will be conducted using sound scientific methods. there's no evidence that there will be. In fact, There are no

hypotheses offered that will be tested, there are none that are outlined. The methods used to gather data are

not given in any detail, and the description of the monitoring is very sketchy. As a reader I'm very

uncertain of the data they collected and how it will be used and whether it can be put into a report or a science

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 moment. document that can undergo peer review and publication. And that concludes my remarks. questions. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: Okay. Well, since the And I'm open to

intervenors asked you to be here, we'll start with them. Ms. Miles? MS. FOLEY GANNON: clarification again? So the statements that she just gave, was that testimony? Was she sworn? I mean, are we -- she's not Can I get a point of

sponsored by CURE, I understand, so I'm just trying to verify where we are with -HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: Well, the committee

asked her to come, plus she's a federal employee, a member -MS. FOLEY GANNON: That's right. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: MS. FOLEY GANNON: Right. We don't swear them. Right. Okay. Oh, she's a federal employee.

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: want to go ahead first? MS. MILES: Sorry.

So, Ms. Miles, do you

If you could give me just a

We prepared some questions, but she's responded

to a number of them, so I just want to make sure we don't --

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: to fill in the gap then? Mr. Ritchie? MR. RITCHIE: Sure. Does someone else want

This is Travis Ritchie with Sierra Club. Dr. Berry, first, thanks for joining us, and thanks for providing your insight. I think it would be

helpful for the record if we perhaps briefly went over your experience and familiarity with the Desert Tortoise. How many years have you been involved with research related to Desert Tortoise? DR. BERRY: I started on a project with the

tortoise in 1970, 1971, at the request of what was then Division of Highways and is now Cal Trans. I began that

project before I finished my doctoral dissertation. MR. RITCHIE: And since that time have you

frequently been involved in Desert Tortoise projects? DR. BERRY: Yes. Starting in 1983 the vast

minority of my time has been spent conducting research on Desert Tortoises. MR. RITCHIE: And you mentioned the recent

project and papers you were involved with on the Fort Irwin health of the Desert Tortoise. Are there other peer-reviewed published papers that you have written and published on this topic?

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. BERRY: Yes. Probably close to 50

peer-reviewed published papers and additional reports, agency reports, and agency documents. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you.

And I wanted to follow up on one of the statements you made. I believe you said that based on your experience you -- translocation is perhaps not an effective measure to mitigate impacts on Desert Tortoise; is that correct? DR. BERRY: MR. RITCHIE: That's correct. And is it possible, in your

opinion, that translocation can actually cause more harm than good? And perhaps I should reference that. Specifically are there potential harms to the receptor sites that -DR. BERRY: Yes. And I think that was one of my

concerns with the proposed translocation plan, was there was inadequate discussion of how they were going to deal with such issues as carrying capacity, they tossed phrases and words around like they didn't want to compromise the resident population, but they didn't set up a protocol or a decision tree on how they would avoid compromising a resident population. They didn't discuss carrying

capacity and how they were going to determine the carrying

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 capacity. MR. RITCHIE: And in your experience what are

some of the factors that are involved in determining carrying capacity? DR. BERRY: Well, number one, we want a history

of the land use on the site, and we would want data on the perennial vegetation and the annual plant vegetation in a number of years. We'd want to know about the surficial

geology at the site because that's essential to understanding the potential for construction burrows. We'd want to know the tortoise population that is present, and we'd want to know not only about the live tortoises but the dead tortoises and what the death rate has been for the last several years. And that can be very

easily ascertained by looking at the shell skeletal remains and having some good idea of the local density of the tortoise population. So there's much that can be learned about the local area and whether it would be suitable for adding tortoises, and if so, how many. MR. RITCHIE: And were those types of factors

looked at in the Fort Irwin project? DR. BERRY: To some extent there's what we call

the group of lessons learned from the Fort Irwin project. And we have a lot of lessons that we've learned from the

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fort Irwin project. One of those lessons is we'd like to

know a lot more about the resident population. MR. RITCHIE: And I'd also like to ask are you

familiar with the Calico project site that's at the base of the Cady Mountains? DR. BERRY: MR. RITCHIE: Yes. And from your understanding and

your experience, is the Desert Tortoise population that's currently present at that site a healthy population? DR. BERRY: I don't have information on the

health of the tortoises, and that kind of information was not presented in the translocation plan. I think that's a

very important topic that needs to be addressed. MR. RITCHIE: And far as the population densities

that were identified in the surveys, does that lead you to believe that -- to make any conclusions about the value of the Calico project site to the Desert Tortoise? DR. BERRY: Yes, it does. When the Desert

Tortoise was listed in 1990 in California, we had several populations of relatively high density, but we had problems with disease and other kinds of threats. Since

that time, the populations that were in high to moderate density for the most part have declined, and many of them have declined markedly for a number of reasons. So we no

longer have those high density populations within the

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 state. Now a site such as the Calico that have a population that at one time would have been considered low to moderate become more important because they are more remote, they're farther away from settlements and towns and the influence of the urban areas, and they offer more hope for the future for the species. MR. ADAMS: Pardon me for the interruption.

Steve Adams with staff. I just -- 5:00 is a hard deadline. I would ask

that the time be equitably apportioned among the parties for asking questions. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: deadline, Dr. Berry? DR. BERRY: If you'll hold a minute, I'll ask. You think that's a hard

There's still people here in the building, but no one's available to ask. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: Does it look like the

doors have crash bars on them so you can force your way out? DR. BERRY: I hope so. So could you stay a

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: little after 5:00 if you -DR. BERRY:

I'll try to stay after 5:00. Okay. And you also --

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER:

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 backstop. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Ritchie. Doctor, I just have one more final you do have a cell phone, right? DR. BERRY: Yes. So that could be our

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER:

MR. RITCHIE:

question, and this is again on the specific Calico site. It's been noted in the testimony and that the site is in a connectivity area between the various recovery units. Does this add anything, in your opinion,

to the value of the site for the Desert Tortoise as a whole? DR. BERRY: With the continuing declines in the

population in California and our inability to stabilize any of the populations, I would say that populations such as the one in the Calico area become more and more important. I might not have said that 15, 20 years ago,

but I would say it now. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you.

I have no further questions. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: MS. MILES: Ms. Miles?

Yes, just a couple.

Dr. Berry, based on your decades of research, what is it you anticipate will happen to the tortoises in the project region if the project is developed?

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. BERRY: In terms of the tortoises that are

scheduled to be translocated, I would expect a high mortality rate, especially if the plan that is proposed is followed. That's based on several factors. One, the

location of the sites themselves, and the proximity for DWMA 1 to the Fort Cady Road and to the Newberry area and the lack of fencing to keep the tortoises from traveling into inappropriate areas. The second is the die-off that is mentioned in the translocation plan for the areas scheduled to place the tortoises south of I-40. the die-off. We don't know the cause of

Why are we proposing to put tortoises there?

And then where else could they be placed? MS. MILES: What about indirect impacts around

the project site to tortoise populations that would still, you know, surround the project area? DR. BERRY: I would anticipate with the human

traffic in the area, that it would increase the predator interest in the general area and that one might be likely to see an increase in the subsidized predator use of the area. MS. MILES: And my last question, you mention

that there were numerous tasks that would need to be completed to implement the translocation plan. Do you foresee any problems with deferring the

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at. For example, the California Department of Fish & Game representative Tanya Moore raised the issue that there's not sufficient receptor sites that have been identified and that more information would be needed. I believe that the Bureau of Land Management representative, Chris Otohal, said that, well, things can be adaptively managed in the future after the project has been approved. And I just wanted to know your opinion as to whether it would -- if you see any problems, if it is problematic to approve the project now on the basis of the plan that currently exists without doing additional analysis and providing more information. DR. BERRY: Well, number one, I said that the And development of those tasks in the plan until after project approval and perhaps even until after in many cases some tortoises have begun to be moved? DR. BERRY: If I understand your question, are

you asking about how the project could be managed if it's approved immediately and then subsequently some of these areas are found unsuitable? MS. MILES: DR. BERRY: MS. MILES: Yes -Could you rephrase the question? -- that's a part of what I'm getting

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project wasn't carefully planned and wasn't a science-based project that would yield valuable and usable information. I don't think as written the plan is likely

to be a sound, productive plan and that it's likely to have great success for the tortoises. If the approval is given, and, of course, I'm not involved with any process such as that, then it becomes more difficult to craft solutions and places to put tortoises, especially if the sites are not previously identified and the sites aren't good sites to begin with. MS. MILES: Thank you, Dr. Berry. Mr. Basofin?

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: MR. BASOFIN: Yes.

Thank you.

Joshua Basofin with Defenders of Wildlife. I just have a couple questions. Dr. Berry, can you elaborate a little bit about the mortality rates that you've observed with the translocated Fort Irwin tortoises in the years that you've been observing? DR. BERRY: Yeah. Okay. We started our project

with the translocation in late March and early April of 2008. We had 158 tortoises. By December of the first

year, nine months into the project, 43 were known to be dead or salvaged because they were dying or just freshly dead, and 15 were missing.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project. We started January of 2009 with 100 known live and 15 missing. At the end of 2009, a year later or

21 months into the project, 27 more tortoises had died and 20 were missing total. rate was 44.7 percent. So this year, in January we started with 68 live tortoises out of the 158, and 20 missing tortoises. Since So at that time our known death

January, eight more tortoises have died, and I have 23 total that are missing. This year alone I have a death

rate of 11.76 percent of the 68 tortoises that were known to be alive in January. So my grand total now known dead is 49 percent with 23 individuals missing. We occasionally find these missing individuals and then we miss or lose some more. Some of these are

animals where they've been apparently attacked by a predator and the transmitter's been torn off. we find them dead. alive. So we have a very high death rate on this And most of the deaths are due to subsidized I should say Sometimes

In very rare cases we find them still

predators, specifically coyotes and ravens. all these tortoises are adults.

We do have instances

where ravens are now attacking, flipping over adult tortoises and killing them by pecking the cloaca and hind

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 leg area and then entering the tortoise that way. The subsidized predation is, I think fueled by the proximity to Barstow, Daggett, Yermo, and the towns and settlements in the area as well as the Fort Irwin cantonment. There are so many sources of food for these And I

predators that their populations are able to build.

think there's a pretty good record on published record on the raven population explosion. MR. BASOFIN: Thank you.

And what was the total mortality percentage that you've observed thus far? DR. BERRY: As of this month the total percentage

is 49 percent known dead where we've got the carcasses, and an additional 23 individuals that are missing, some of which may be dead. MR. BASOFIN: Thank you.

That's all I have. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: MR. ADAMS: Thank you. Staff?

Dr. Berry, you're familiar, I assume, with the Fish & Wildlife Service 2010 translocation of the Mojave population from project sites, planned development criteria? DR. BERRY: I don't think I've looked at that

recently, and I'm not sure I've looked at it at all.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ADAMS: Okay. There's an update that just

came out, I think this month, and staff has proposed a -in its condition on translocation that the final plan be consistent with these criteria. You don't have an opinion, I would guess, on whether that is appropriate, if you're not familiar with the document? DR. BERRY: MR. ADAMS: I'd have to read it first. Are there other criteria, guidelines

that you do think we should reference and require that this translocation plan be made consistent with? DR. BERRY: In terms of guidelines, no, I can't

give you any other than it needs to be a good, science-based plan because we need to gather as much valuable and usable information as possible to determine if this is an appropriate mitigation or minimization measure to use into the future. And right now we don't

have adequate information to assure us that it is and that under what circumstances it might be. MR. ADAMS: Do you -- and from your testimony, I

understand that one of the big concerns is the amount of information at the sites that will be receiving tortoises to make sure that they will fit in there. I'm wondering, for someone who doesn't have the knowledge of the various studies you've talked about,

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adequate. how -- what kind of time and effort goes into what you would consider appropriate level of study prior to approval of a translocation plan? DR. BERRY: Well, number one, is the food

And that requires doing surveys of the plant

biomass and composition in springtime when the winter annuals are available. And if we have a dry year, we But we need data for

can't get very much information. more than one year.

And you can't get that data by

looking at the vegetation in the fall and you can't get at that information by eyeballing it and visually saying there's a lot of good forage out there, because tortoises are very picky eaters, they don't just eat any annual plant. There's some families they don't touch at all.

And they do have different food habits in different areas. So it's important to know what the composition of the plants are and if there's going to be adequate food. And the big question for many of us is, well why add more tortoises; aren't the numbers out there what the land can withstand? The land right now, we have an influx Bellari (sic) is one. The

of invasive annual plants.

Arab grass schismus, which there's two species of schismus, is another. And in research undertaken by my graduate study and myself, that's Matt Brooks and I, on annual plants in

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the critical habitat of tortoises in the western, central, and southern Mojave, we found that these alien annual plants composed about 65 percent of the biomass. So these

alien annual plants, some of which the tortoises don't eat unless there's nothing else available, are now taking up a large portion of the nutrients and the moisture in the environment. So we may not have the carrying capacity

that we once thought, and maybe this is why we are seeing die-off. We also need to consider climate change in the location of placing these tortoises, because if we are undergoing climate warming, are we placing tortoises where they really don't have a chance 15, 20 years from now? if we put these animals at some of these very low elevation, and I think about the DWMA 1 site which grades to the north right into the agricultural areas without a fence, then these animals are going to be right up against some poor habitat. MR. ADAMS: So in general in your view the way to So

proceed would be to identify tentatively potential sites for -- to receive the tortoises and then conduct a spring survey, but it sounds like maybe more than one year. DR. BERRY: That's right. And then also at the

same time get the information on the live and dead tortoises that are occupying the area and on their health.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ADAMS: Do you have any idea how -- whether

that standard is met with any or many of the translocation plans that are approved for projects? DR. BERRY: Fort Irwin project. Well, we did a lot of that for the We did massive work on the resident

population as well as the control population and on the tortoises themselves that were scheduled to be translocated. MR. ADAMS: Any other projects you know of that

have done that level of work? DR. BERRY: MR. ADAMS: No. And finally, you probably have heard

from some of the people who have contacted you, that at last week's hearing the abstract of the study that your name is on was introduced, and I think there was discussion about the fact that you don't agree with some of the conclusions of that. Could you just briefly catch us up on that or explain -DR. BERRY: Oh, yes. Yes. I -- actually, I --

it's been published, it's out and available now, and the issue is that the project dealt with the year 2008 only. So the figures quoted and the impacts are related to the first year of translocation only. And 2008 as the year

that was preceded by a very dry year, which exacerbated

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the coyote population or the predator population, because they were very hungry. So what is different with what I have to say is we have to be careful not to say that the effects of translocation on the tortoises here and the predation that was going on here is the same as what's going on in the year 2009 and the year 2010. I think we have more

information now to separate out impacts of translocation on tortoises that are above and beyond what we reported with this study. MR. ADAMS: Okay. And your opinion is that the

predation is -- does hit the translocated tortoises more heavily disproportionately than the population overall. DR. BERRY: I would say that it's very possible

that that's what's going on, and I would say that based on the data that I provided in earlier testimony comparing the Daggett site for instance, this year, with the translocated tortoises. Because I have 78 tortoises at the Daggett study area, and only two and a half percent died; even though many of them are sick, only two and a half percent died between January 2010 and the present. Whereas my

translocated tortoises had a higher death rate, higher mortality rate. And if I look at still a third site in

the Soda Mountains on the east part of Fort Irwin, I have

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no deaths, zero deaths. So I think that, though it's very preliminary in nature, I think we do have to look at each of these years separately and we have to look at all these situations very carefully. And this is one of the issues that makes

translocation so problematic. When we first started to see the deaths with the tortoises in the first year, in 2008, it appeared that the females were being disproportionately killed. turns out it was the smaller animals that were disproportionately killed. And as time has gone on, we Well, it

have not seen a gender difference in the animals that I've lost to predation. So it may be the coyotes preyed first

on the smaller and easier prey and then it moved on to the larger individuals. MR. ADAMS: Okay. And I promise, last question.

From your data on your study, is predation of translocated tortoises the main -- the main risk? DR. BERRY: Yes. Yes. I've had one rattlesnake,

two vehicle kills on dirt roads, a death due to gout, the tortoise was sick with gout, and a death, at least one or two, hyperthermia, from becoming overheated. And the rest

have been primarily canid deaths, but we did recently have a Golden Eagle kill. MR. ADAMS: Okay. Thank you very much.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: Applicant?

Then we'll go to folks on the phone. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Thank you.

Dr. Berry, first question, when you were starting out in your presentation this afternoon, you were talking about some problems that you'd identified with the translocation plan and they were relating to whether the plan had hypotheticals, whether there were scientific ways for testing it, whether it would result in a peer-review article. It just leads me to wonder, what is the goal, do

you think, of a project-specific translocation plan? DR. BERRY: Well, if it's for the Desert

Tortoise, which is a listed species, one of the objectives should be to develop information that's going to help with the recovery of the species. On the subject of

translocation, we need more information, rather than less. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Yeah, I understand that. But

are you also looking at trying to -- as you said, you may question whether it is effective in minimizing the impacts. But I would assume that the reason that a listed

species is moved out of harm's way is to try to preserve that species; is that correct? DR. BERRY: Well, there's a difference -The individual members is what

MS. FOLEY GANNON:

I'm speaking to, first of all.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. BERRY: Yeah. Yeah. Certainly there's a

difference between moving it off the road and a translocation project. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Absolutely, and I don't think

anybody would be writing a translocation plan for moving off the road. So I'm speaking here to a situation where

you need a translocation plan. So again, one of the goals would be -- a primary goal would be to identify how you're actually going to be handling and addressing the individual tortoises that are potentially affected by the activity that's going to be approved? DR. BERRY: Well, I would think that one of your

overall and overarching objectives would be to have the animals survive. MS. FOLEY GANNON: DR. BERRY: Sure. Right. So again --

And so everything would be directed,

all of the activities would be directed toward enhancing the situation for those tortoises as well as the resident tortoises. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Right. I guess I'm just

trying to break it down so I understand what you think is missing from that plan. But the things you were speaking about of having hypotheses that could be tested, and peer-reviewed

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 articles that could be produced, that's not necessarily relating to the actual impacts on individual members of the species, either those that are translocated or those that are of the resident population; is that right? DR. BERRY: That's right. That would -- the

report would be an outcome.

But I think that by

developing hypotheses and setting up a very sound study plan and getting the plan peer-reviewed, which is required in our agency of each of the scientists, we could produce a far better and we do produce far better research and findings and have a better outcome, because we have very careful planning and it's all laid out and outlined and well presented. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Right. And speaking of the

peer review, you just spoke in response to Mr. Adams's questions about the summary of the article that was based, I guess, on the 2008 data, and you were talking about 2009 and 2010 data. And there may be other conclusions. But

those conclusions have not been yet presented in a peer-reviewed article, correct? DR. BERRY: No, they -Those are preliminary?

MS. FOLEY GANNON: DR. BERRY:

The information from 2009 is in

progress reports with -- and includes statistical analyses that are presented to the agencies.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. FOLEY GANNON: Thank you.

And then you were raising some issues about the level of analysis that had been done on the proposed translocation sites. And it sounds like you think that

there just isn't enough of an explanation in the plan that is responding to the list of issues that you identify, like the types of plants that are present in those areas and the assessment of whether those would be appropriate foraging for Desert Tortoise and that sort of information; is that correct, that information you think should be added to this draft plan before it's finalized? DR. BERRY: If the information was actually

gathered and recorded -MS. FOLEY GANNON: DR. BERRY: presented. information. Right. So if the --

-- it should be -- it should be

There should be quantitative and qualitative There's statements like the vegetation of Well, there

creosote bush or Mojave Desert creosote bush.

are creosote bush communities of many, many different types, and -MS. FOLEY GANNON: Right. So if that -- but that

information was gathered, it should be included in this plan, and that would help -DR. BERRY: That would assist. That would assist.

MS. FOLEY GANNON:

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. BERRY: And certainly the surficial geology

is very important, because the age of the surfaces of the alluvial fans and the places where from which the tortoises will be taken and potentially placed should be present too. Is this a 100 or 500-year-old surface, or is

it a 500,000-year-old surface, and what is it composed of? It makes a huge difference on what forage might be available and what burrowing sites might be available. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Right. And then you were also

asking about or commenting on the lack of testing that had been done on the Desert Tortoise themselves on site. As

I'm sure you're aware, for the investigators to actually be able to do health assessments on the resident population, they'd actually have to be handling the tortoises generally; wouldn't that be correct? DR. BERRY: Yes. And if the agency precludes

MS. FOLEY GANNON:

handling of the tortoises during this type of surveys, is there a way that you would suggest that someone who's drafting this plan should again gather this information? DR. BERRY: I think it would be appropriate at

some phase of the project, at some decision-making phase of the project that that information be gathered and that handling be part of the program and part of the protocol. About --

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. FOLEY GANNON: DR. BERRY: And it's --

About 50 percent of the tortoises

that have upper respiratory tract disease or this infectious disease that's noted in the translocation plan and that we're all concerned about, about 50 percent of these tortoises don't show clinical signs all the time. And so a visual inspection doesn't tell one very much. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Sure. But early on I would

assume you wouldn't want tortoises being handled all the time. Right? I mean, you would want it to be limited to

the appropriate time period in the translocation efforts or in the planning efforts. I mean, you understand why

the service wouldn't want the tortoises to be handled on sort of a regular basis; is that right? DR. BERRY: Well, you're saying all -- using the

words "all the time" and "regular." MS. FOLEY GANNON: Okay. Let me ask it this way:

If every time a project was proposed that could potentially involve translocation of Desert Tortoise, would you think it would be appropriate for the surveys to always allow for health assessments for handling for testing of all of the tortoises that are present? DR. BERRY: If there is a reasonable future for

the project, a likelihood of a certain percentage that is going to be considered strongly? Then I think it would

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certainly be appropriate to have a one-time handling of each individual that's encountered on the site or a similar protocol established. MS. FOLEY GANNON: But if the agencies don't

allow that, then you agree or recognize that -DR. BERRY: I recognize --- the applicant couldn't do

MS. FOLEY GANNON: that then; is that right? DR. BERRY: Right.

MS. FOLEY GANNON: DR. BERRY:

Okay.

But at the same time, the applicant

needs to recognize the deficiencies in that kind of -that approach. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Right. And that's why I

believe the plan then has provisions for the testing that will be done and the range of responses to the results of those tests. And is that an appropriate way for dealing with this data void that they can't address? DR. BERRY: Yes. It is appropriate. It would

have been much more assuring to see a more careful treatment of the health and disease portions planned. There's no mention of this other infectious disease, mycoplasma testudinium. No mention that lab tests would

be done for that mycoplasma.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nature. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Okay. And you had referenced The use of the term "disease," there's -- it's not clear whether animals that have shell lesions of any size or sort would be excluded from being translocated. There's much that needs to be done on the health and disease section of the plan. MS. FOLEY GANNON: So there are improvements that

need to be made to this draft section of this plan. DR. BERRY: Yes. Right. Okay.

MS. FOLEY GANNON: DR. BERRY: few things. MS. FOLEY GANNON:

And I'm listing -- I'm listing just a

Sure.

That does raise the

point you are aware that this plan was being developed and has been going through multiple level of review by the service, the BLM, and CDFG; are you aware of that? DR. BERRY: Yes. Would you assume that those

MS. FOLEY GANNON:

agencies are going to be giving appropriate direction of these types of modifications that they feel need to be made to the plan? DR. BERRY: I don't make any assumption of that

earlier about the -- I think the question was about the site and where it's located and the role that it place.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 habitat. And it was -- you were noting that it was located between critical habitat areas but the site is not a critical habitat area; is that correct? DR. BERRY: I didn't say anything about critical

habitat in my testimony. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Maybe it was in the question.

The question was put -- was phrased as it's located between critical habitat areas. mention of critical habitat. Is the site critical habitat? DR. BERRY: The Calico site is not critical There was a

However, the proposed translocation recipient

areas are in or adjacent to critical habitat. MS. FOLEY GANNON: And when the service is

designating critical habitat, is it that they're looking for the areas that they have determined to be essential to the survival and recovery of the species; is that correct? Isn't that what the regulations provide? DR. BERRY: The tortoise was listed in 1990. The

critical habitat was published in 1994. MS. FOLEY GANNON: I understand that. But when

they're designating critical habitat -DR. BERRY: And we designated the critical

habitat based on the areas that we thought at the time were necessary for recovery of the species.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project? DR. BERRY: I read that, yes. And do you believe that it Since that time, there have been 20 years that have passed since the listing and since work on the first recovery plan and the critical habitat was published, 20 years have passed, populations have declined markedly. In some places, especially in the western Mojave, they've crashed. So the critical habitat that was designated in

some cases doesn't contain now sufficient viable population. So we're concerned about areas outside the

critical habitat. MS. FOLEY GANNON: And you've referenced some

information that you think that can be helpful sort of in the long-term planning that would take multiple years to gather. Are you aware that the Calico project is a phased

MS. FOLEY GANNON:

would be appropriate for, particularly if the initial phases involve the translocation of a very few number of tortoises, for them to continue gathering this type of information during the phasing of the project? be an appropriate way of proceeding? DR. BERRY: actually developed. this. I think it depends on what areas are And I don't want to be misquoted on Would that

I think if I turn and look at some of these figures

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. that are available on the different phases, if the project proceeds, there's a Phase 1 area that's below the Phase 2, the northern Phase 2, that appears to have a very low number, and the Phase 2 areas between the railroad and the freeway. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Right. And unfortunately the

plan that you have does not have the -- Phase 1 has been further subdivided into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. certainly -- we understand that you will be speaking hypothetically here because you don't have the advantage of that map. But if you became aware that Phase 1A was in And we

an area in which two -- one tortoise was found in the earlier surveys, would that seem like if the project was going to go forward that that would be sort of an appropriate way to start and do some of this further data gathering that you've described? DR. BERRY: That could be an appropriate move.

However, I think the greater issue is whether in approving a project the whole project is going to be approved prior to gaining critical information that would be essential to making good decisions on the tortoises in the other parts of the area. There's a big difference between an impact

on a couple of tortoises and 185 or over 100 tortoises. MS. FOLEY GANNON: Sure. Yeah, we appreciate

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time. I think we are getting close to the end of our I guess I would ask is -- Ashleigh from the service

was on earlier, if we could find out if she's going to be able to be on when we come back later. It would be, I

think, helpful to have the service and the BLM and CDFG, if they're available, also to speak to some of the comments we've discussed here with Dr. Berry. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: there with us? MS. BLACKFORD: I am still here. I am not going Ms. Blackford, are you

to be available till 10:00 tonight however. MS. FOLEY GANNON: MS. BLACKFORD: How about at 7:30?

7:30 I can do. Oh, okay. I thought you

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER:

said I couldn't come back until 10:00. MS. BLACKFORD: Oh no, no, no. I have other --

I'm not really allowed to work after 6:00 without asking for special time, and these late meetings are hard for us, some of us to work around. So 7:30 I can do. Well, you're not the So if

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER:

only person who hopes to be doing something else. we'll actually be reconvening at about 6:30 -MS. FOLEY GANNON: MS. BLACKFORD: Oh, 6:30. Okay.

Okay. So --

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER:

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BLACKFORD: Oh, yeah, right, because we're

going to take a break now until -HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: MS. BLACKFORD: Right. Until 6:30.

I will be here at 6:30. All right.

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER:

There are a couple of intervenors on the phone. Did you have any questions for Dr. Berry before she goes? Because we do plan to excuse her so she can get back to, well, her home, I hope. MS. CUNNINGHAM: Yeah, Laura Cunningham. Go ahead,

HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: Ms. Cunningham. MS. CUNNINGHAM:

Dr. Berry, I have one question.

In the greater Barstow region, this central Mojave Desert, to recover the tortoise, would you think that areas that have relatively high tortoise density and that are reproducing well, but that they're outside of desert wildlife management areas, these areas also be preserved? DR. BERRY: I think they can -- yes, I think they I don't think there was

can serve an important function.

the intention when the critical habitat was established that tortoises would be allowed to die or the areas be developed in all the other non-critical habitat areas. MS. CUNNINGHAM: Okay. Thank you.

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: the phone? PRESIDING MEMBER EGGERT: I just want to -I just want to Any other questions from

Dr. Berry, this is Commissioner Eggert. thank you for joining us today.

I think, you know, it's

clear that your credentials are impeccable, your knowledge and experience is quite deep on this issue, and it's been quite valuable to have you participate in this hearing. And I've found the most recent Q and A to be very helpful to my knowledge of this -- of this particular issue. So appreciate you risking getting locked in wherever you happen to be in Barstow to stay with us some extra time to answer the questions. DR. BERRY: Well, thank you. I appreciate the

opportunity to be able to comment. PRESIDING MEMBER EGGERT: HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: Thank you. Okay. Well, with that

we will adjourn for an hour for -- Mr. Meyer? MR. MEYER: Excuse me, Hearing Officer Kramer. I

have a couple staff members that I'm trying to find out if we're done with traffic and transportation, if those staff can be excused to go home. And also I think there might

be -- I'll leave it to Jared Babula to talk about cultural, to see if cultural can go. HEARING OFFICER KRAMER: We did finish cultural,

EHLERT BUSINESS GROUP

(916)851-5976

November 6, 2013 Notice of Violations of the ESA

ATTACHMENT 7

PROGRESS REPORT FOR 2009 The Health Status of Translocated Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in the Fort Irwin Translocation Area and Surrounding Release Plots, San Bernardino County, California: Year 2

Timothy Gowan and Kristin H. Berry (Principal Investigator)

U. S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos Moreno Valley, California 92553

for
Commander National Training Center and Fort Irwin ATTN: AFZJ-PW-EV, Mr. Clarence Everly P.O. Box 105097 Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5097

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

The Health Status of Translocated Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in the Fort Irwin Translocation Area and Surrounding Release Plots, San Bernardino County, California
Abstract. In spring of 2008, we translocated 158 adult and subadult tortoises (82 females and 76 males) from the Southern Expansion Area (SEA) to four plots located in the Superior-Cronese Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) as part of the Desert Tortoise Health and Disease Research Project for the Ft. Irwin Expansion. Long-term objectives include modeling and predicting effects of translocation on survival of tortoises by health status, presence of infectious diseases and trauma, size and age class, and sex. Tortoises were placed in 4 health categories: 1) healthy or control tortoises, 2) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of past trauma, 3) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of shell disease, and 4) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of upper respiratory tract disease but with no evidence of nasal discharge and negative laboratory tests. As of December 2008, 43 of the initial 158 translocated tortoises had been found dead or had been salvaged for necropsy, and an additional 15 tortoises were missing. We started Year 2 in January 2009, with 100 live tortoises and 15 missing tortoises in the project. During 2009, we conducted health evaluations for clinical signs of health, disease, and trauma for 81 tortoises in the spring and 65 tortoises in the fall. In the spring 4 (4.9%) and 2 (2.5%) tortoises had positive or suspect ELISA tests for Mycoplasma agassizii and M. testudineum, respectively. In the fall 6 of 65 (9.2%) tortoises tested positive or suspect for M. agassizii; none had positive or suspect tests for M. testudineum. Overall during 2009, 9 of 81 individual tortoises (11.1%) had ELISA test results that were positive or suspect for Mycoplasma species. When weights of tortoises were compared for 2008 and 2009, spring weights were significantly higher than fall weights. In addition, weights in fall 2009 were significantly lower than weights in fall 2008. Between January and December of 2009, 27 (23.5%) of the remaining 115 live and missing tortoises were found dead. Of the 27, 24 were probably killed by coyotes or other canids, one was killed by a vehicle, and 2 died of unknown causes. Overall, since the translocation began in March of 2008, 44.3% of tortoises have been found dead or were salvaged for necropsy. Combining data from 2008 and 2009, death rates were significantly higher on two plots, plots 3 and 5, than on plots 1.5 and 8. In contrast to 2008, in 2009 the size of a tortoise was not related to risk of death; the average carapace length did not differ from those still alive. Likewise, in contrast to 2008, in 2009 death rates did not differ between sexes. Death rates also did not differ significantly among the four health categories. At the end of 2009, an additional 20 tortoises (17.4%, 20/115) were missing. We analyzed movement patterns for live tortoises between the time of initial release in spring 2008 and December 2009 (N = 68). Overall, the mean dispersal distance for males was twice that of females; likewise, males moved twice the total distances compared to females. Total distances moved were higher on plots 3 and 5 than 2

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

on plots 1.5 and 8 but were not significantly different. However, the minimum total distances moved in 2009 were significantly less than in 2008. Females were more likely to use the same cover sites between 2008 and 2009 than males, a potential indication of settling.

INTRODUCTION The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is a Federally- and State-listed threatened species. Critical habitat for the species occurs north and west of the Colorado River/Grand Canyon complex, including habitat on and adjacent to the National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, in the central Mojave Desert (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990, 1994). As part of the Ft. Irwin Translocation Project, an estimated 600 to 1000 tortoises have been or are planned to be translocated from the southern and western parts of the expanded Ft. Irwin base to areas outside the Ft. Irwin boundary (Esque et al. 2005). The primary goal of this research project is to monitor the health and disease status of the translocated tortoises, with an emphasis on the spread of infectious disease. Because infectious diseases have been linked to declining desert tortoise populations (Jacobson et al. 1991; Brown et al. 1994, 1999; Homer et al. 1998; Christopher et al. 2003), the incidence of disease is a critical factor in determining success of translocation. We designed our project to measure the success of translocation, depending on health status of translocated tortoises. Specifically, the translocated tortoises were grouped into one of four health categories: 1) healthy or control tortoises, without moderate to severe clinical signs of infectious disease, trauma, or shell disease; 2) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of past trauma; 3) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of shell disease; and 4) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of upper respiratory tract disease (URTD), but with no evidence of nasal discharge and negative laboratory tests. Several long-term objectives are to be addressed during the life of the multi-year project. First, we are tracking and sampling tortoises for several years to model and predict the effects of translocation on survival by health status, size and age class, and sex. More specifically, we hope to determine whether or not translocatees in each of the four health categories develop new disease, more severe clinical signs of URTD, more severe cases of shell disease, or new trauma post-translocation. To better understand the epidemiology and distribution of mycoplasmosis or URTD in the Ft. Irwin Translocation Project area, the health status of tortoises and locations of tortoises that have previously tested positive or suspect for mycoplasmosis are being continuously monitored. As part of these analyses, we are also examining differences in survivorship and causes of death among health status categories; differences in survivorship among size and age classes, sexes, and translocation release sites; and differences in the pathogenesis of mycoplasmosis among size and age classes, sexes, and levels of anthropogenic impacts. Second, the anthropogenic factors most likely to influence translocation success need to be identified and modeled. Anthropogenic factors include but are not limited to

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

roads, military maneuver areas, and rural or urban areas. Third, ecological factors, including landscape and topography, are other variables in the analysis. Both anthropogenic and ecological factors have the potential of affecting health status and degree of trauma of translocated tortoises. We will also explore differences in survivorship among size and age classes and sexes by comparing habitat conditions between initial capture sites and translocation release sites, including levels of anthropogenic disturbance at original home sites and release sites. This report is a progress report summarizing the status of 158 tortoises that were translocated in the spring of 2008 and were subsequently monitored for health and disease (Berry et al. 2009). Briefly, in spring of 2008, a total of 82 females and 76 males were translocated from the Southern Expansion Area (SEA) to four plots located in the Superior-Cronese Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA). As of December 2008, 43 of the initial 158 translocated tortoises had been found dead (41) or salvaged for necropsy (2), and an additional 15 tortoises were unable to be located and were considered missing. We started the 2009 field season in January with 100 remaining tortoises. In addressing the previously stated objectives, we tracked the remaining translocated tortoises monthly, continued to search for missing tortoises, conducted health evaluations on the tortoises during spring and fall, analyzed movement patterns and use of cover sites, and determined causes of death for dead individuals. Our preliminary findings for 2009 are summarized below. METHODS Translocation Between March 26 and April 8, 2008, 158 desert tortoises were translocated from the SEA to one of four designated plots (plots 1.5, 3, 5, and 8; see Fig. 1). These translocation plots, each about one square mile in size, are located outside the Ft. Irwin boundary and are within or bordering the Superior-Cronese DWMA. Prior to translocation, tortoises located in the SEA were fitted with radiotransmitters and were assigned to one of the following four health status categories based on previous health evaluations: 1) healthy tortoises, without moderate to severe clinical signs of infectious disease, trauma, or shell disease; 2) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of past trauma; 3) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of shell disease; and 4) tortoises with moderate to severe clinical signs of URTD, but with no evidence of nasal discharge and negative laboratory tests. Approximately 20 adult males and 20 adult females in each of the four health status categories were selected to be translocated (Berry et al. 2009). Tortoises that had previously tested positive for mycoplasmosis or had signs of nasal discharge were not considered for translocation. Tortoises were tracked daily, then weekly, and finally at least once per month after translocation using radio telemetry (Berry et al. 2009). Beginning in July 2008, all translocated tortoises were tracked on a monthly basis, unless behavioral or health reasons dictated more frequent checks. Upon locating tortoises during monthly tracking, critical data were recorded, including, but not limited to: date, weather conditions, time

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

observed, location in UTMs (NAD 83), behavioral observations, specific location of the tortoise (e.g., inside cover site, in open, under shrub), interactions with other tortoises, and general condition of the tortoise (e.g. appearing ill, stressed, lethargic, or healthy). When tortoises were located and found to be dead, the location, position, and condition of remains, along with evidence for cause of death were recorded and the remains were photographed. Health Evaluations Periodically, comprehensive health evaluations of each tortoise were conducted. In general, the health status of each tortoise was evaluated once in the spring (April 27 to May 4) and once in the fall (October 7 to October 27) in 2009, but these evaluations were more frequent for tortoises showing indications of illness or stress. The evaluations included recording data regarding posture, behavior, activity, recent trauma, and clinical signs of disease, such as URTD and cutaneous dyskeratosis, on the eyes, beak, nares, integument, and shell on a standardized seven-page form modified from an appendix in Berry and Christopher (2001). Length at the carapace midline (MCL) and weight of each tortoise were measured during evaluations, and digital photographs were taken of the eyes, beak, nares, plastron, carapace, and any unusual trauma or lesions. Blood and nasal lavage samples were also collected during health evaluations. Samples of blood were drawn either by brachial venipuncture or from the subcarapacial site using standard protocols (Hernandez-Divers et al. 2002, Berry et al. 2006). Samples of blood that contained 15% or more of lymph were considered to be suboptimal because of the potential negative impact of dilution (e.g., Gottdenker and Jacobson 1995). Where possible, such samples were repeated with an objective of obtaining 90100% blood with no lymph or only a trace of lymph (Berry et al. 2005). A nasal lavage was taken using standard protocols (Berry et al. 2006). Blood plasma and nasal samples were shipped to the Mycoplasma Laboratory at the University of Florida to determine the presence of antibodies to Mycoplasma agassizii or M. testudineum using enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) tests (Schumacher et al. 1993; Brown et al. 1994, 2004; Wendland et al. 2007). Cultures and polymerase chain reaction tests (Brown et al. 2002) were also used. The laboratory procedures are summarized in Berry (2006). Three primary databases were constructed for each calendar year. One database is the monthly monitoring with dates and locations in UTMs. The second database summarizes tissue samples obtained and includes data on type of samples obtained (blood plasma, plasma/lymph, and nasal lavage), date of collection, volume of samples, results of ELISA tests for M. agassizii and M. testudineum, and results of polymerase chain reaction tests for positive or suspect cultures. The first two databases are being transmitted separately to Clarence Everly, permit holder, for the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. They contain all Ft. Irwin-related data sets. The third database contains the data collected from health evaluations, including clinical signs of disease and trauma. This database is still in the process of receiving quality assurance and control and will be provided at a later time.

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

Movement Patterns Two variables relating to movement patterns were calculated for the translocated tortoises. The first variable, dispersal distance, was calculated as the straight-line distance between the point of release and the location furthest from the release point at which the tortoise was located. The second variable, minimum total distance, was calculated as the summation of the straight-line distances between consecutive locations. Both of these measurements were calculated with straight-line distances and, as such, should be considered conservative estimates. Only live tortoises with known locations (i.e., those not dead or missing) as of December 2009 were used in these analyses (n = 68). To determine the degree of settlement of translocated tortoises, the minimum total distance moved in 2008 was compared to that in 2009 for the 68 tortoises described above. Fidelity to cover sites was also examined (n = 68) by comparing summer (July and August) and winter (December and January) cover site locations for 2008 and 2009. The distance moved each month by these 68 tortoises was also plotted to examine seasonal and annual variation in movements patterns and differences between sexes. Finally, the number of tortoises still remaining on each plot (i.e. within the one square mile boundary of the initial release plots) was compared to the number of tortoises that have dispersed from the plot. Data Analysis We used repeated measures ANOVA to examine changes in weight within individual tortoises across seasons after translocation. A post hoc test was used to determine which seasons differed. Only tortoises with weight data for all four seasons (spring 2008, fall 2008, spring 2009, and fall 2009) were used in this analysis (n = 64). One-way ANOVAs were used to compare movement variables (dispersal distance and minimum total distance) between sexes and among plots. A paired t-test was used to compare minimum total distances between 2008 and 2009. Because tortoises were released at translocation sites in March-early April 2008, we analyzed and compared movements from March-December of 2008 with movements from March-December 2009. Fishers exact tests were used to compare cover site fidelity between sexes, as well as death rates between translocation plots, between sexes, and between health categories (healthy, shell disease, URTD, or trauma). Fishers exact tests were also used to compare the proportion of tortoises still remaining within plot boundaries among translocation sites and among sexes. One-way ANOVAs were used to compare the sizes (MCL) of tortoises that died to those still alive. All statistical tests were conducting using SYSTAT Software version 12.0 (SYSTAT Software Inc. 2007). RESULTS

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

Summary of 2008 A total of 82 females and 76 males were translocated from the SEA to plots located in the DWMA. Of the 158 translocated tortoises, 21 females and 17 males were translocated to Plot 1.5, 21 females and 19 males were translocated to Plot 3, 19 females and 20 males were translocated to Plot 5, and 21 females and 20 males were translocated to Plot 8. As of December 2008, 43 of the initial 158 translocated tortoises were found dead (41) or salvaged for necropsy (2), and an additional 15 tortoises were unable to be located at the time and were considered missing. As of December 2008, the locations of 100 live tortoises were known. The sex ratio of these tortoises was 44 females and 56 males. Health Evaluations In January 2009, 44 females and 56 males were known to be alive; in December 2009, 32 females and 36 males were known to be alive. Comprehensive health evaluations were conducted on 81 translocated tortoises in the spring of 2009 (April 27 to May 4). Blood plasma and nasal lavage samples were also collected from each of these 81 tortoises. Three of these blood samples (3.7%) were a blood/lymph mixture, with at least 90% of the sample composed of blood; the remaining samples were composed of 100% blood. As of the end of spring of 2009, 55 tortoises had been found dead or salvaged for necropsy and 22 were unable to be located. Comprehensive health evaluations were conducted on 65 translocated tortoises in the fall of 2009 (October 7 to October 27). Blood plasma and nasal lavage samples were also collected from each of these 65 tortoises. Eight of these blood samples were a blood/lymph mixture, with at least 95% of the sample composed of blood; one sample (from 4499F) was a blood/lymph mixture with 50% of the sample composed of blood; the remaining samples were composed of 100% blood. As of the fall of 2009, 69 tortoises had been found dead or salvaged for necropsy, 20 were unable to be located, and four were unable to be extracted from their cover sites for health evaluations. Tests for Mycoplasmosis In the spring of 2009, four (4.9%) of 81 tortoises had positive or suspect ELISA tests for Mycoplasma agassizii (Table 1). Three tortoises had suspect tests and one tortoise had a positive ELISA test for M. agassizii. Of the four tortoises with positive or suspect ELISA tests for M. agassizii, two were located on plot 8, one was on plot 1.5, and one was on plot 3 (Fig. 2). Additionally, two tortoises (2.5%) had positive or suspect ELISA tests for M. testudineum. One tortoise had a positive test and the other a suspect ELISA test for M. testudineum; both were located on plot 1.5 (Fig. 3). Of the 81 nasal lavage samples collected in the spring, all cultures were negative for both M. agassizii and M. testudineum. In the fall of 2009, six (9.2%) of 65 tortoises tested for M. agassizii had positive or suspect ELISA tests (Table 1). Three tortoises had positive tests and three tortoises

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

had suspect ELISA tests for M. agassizii. All six tortoises were located on plots 1.5 or 8 (Fig. 4). Five of these tortoises had previous positive or suspect tests for mycoplasmosis (Table 1). All 65 tortoises tested for M. testudineum in the fall had negative ELISA tests (Fig. 5). Two tortoises (4024M and 4257F) which had previously tested positive and suspect, respectively, for M. testudineum in spring, were not available to be tested because they had been killed by predators. Results are not yet available for cultures from the 65 nasal lavage samples. Weight There was a significant effect of season on measured weight (F 3,189 = 132.0, p < 0.001). The post-hoc test revealed weight was greatest in spring 2008 just after translocation, fell in fall 2008, increased back to initial levels in spring 2009, and fell again in fall 2009 (Fig. 6). Weight was not significantly different among the two spring seasons (p = 0.964), however it was significantly lower in fall 2009 compared to fall 2008 (p = 0.001). Movements and Fidelity to Cover Sites Summary statistics for dispersal distance and minimum total distance are reported in Table 2. The tortoise which has moved the most, 4143M translocated to plot 8, has been located on multiple dates just outside the Ft. Irwin boundary fence in the SEA, 12.6 km from its initial release location, and has moved a total distance of at least 18.8 km since its release. Overall, males have dispersed further from their release locations compared to females (means = 3256.4 m for males, 1517.9 m for females; F 1, 66 = 12.3, p = 0.001). Males also had greater total distances moved compared to females (means = 6858.4 m for males, 3492.0 m for females; F 1, 66 = 23.9, p < 0.001). Although the total distances that remaining live tortoises moved was greater on plots 5 (mean = 7403.3 m) and 3 (6020.8 m) compared to plots 1.5 (4899.8 m) and 8 (4778.4 m), these differences were not statistically significant (F 3, 64 = 1.5, p = 0.224). Similarly, dispersal distance did not vary among translocations plots (F 3, 64 = 1.1, p = 0.351). The minimum total distance moved in 2009 (mean = 1854 m) was significantly less than that in 2008 (mean = 3222 m; t 67 = 4.837, p < 0.001). Regarding use of cover sites, five of 68 (7.4%) tortoises have used the same cover site every season (summer and winter of 2008 and summer and winter of 2009), and an additional 36 (52.9%) tortoises have used the same cover site in at least two of these seasons. In contrast, 27 (39.7%) of 68 tortoises had minimal fidelity to sites and used a different cover site for each season examined. Females were more likely to use the same cover sites than males (Fishers exact test, p < 0.001); 22 of 38 males used different cover sites for each season compared to just 5 of 30 females. Eighteen tortoises still remain within the boundaries of their initial release plots. On plot 1.5, six tortoises still remain on the plot, compared to two on plot 3, one on plot 5, and nine on plot 8 (Table 3). However, when considering the total number of tortoises alive at each translocation site, the proportion of tortoises on plot to those off plot is not

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

significantly different among translocation plots (Fishers exact test, p = 0.801). Additionally, the number of females remaining on the plots does not differ from the number of males (Fishers exact test, p = 1.00). There has been marked seasonal variation in movement. Tortoises moved the greatest distances in the spring months immediately following translocation (Fig. 7). Tortoises travelled large distances in the spring of 2009 and, to a lesser extent, in the fall seasons of 2008 and 2009. Tortoises were least active during summer and winter months. The distances moved in 2009 were noticeably less than those in 2008 for both the spring and fall seasons, respectively (Fig. 7). Corroborative with the previous analyses, in general males moved more than females in each month. Mortality As of December 2009, 70 (44.3%) of the initial 158 tortoises had been found dead (68) or had been salvaged for necropsy (2). For 2009, the death rate of the 115 remaining tortoises (27 of 115), was similar (23.5%) but slightly lower than that of 2008, the year in which tortoises were first translocated (43 of 158, 27.2%). In 2009, 24 tortoises were probably killed by coyotes or other canids, and the causes of death were unable to be conclusively determined for three tortoises (Table 4). One of these tortoises, 4644F, had been missing for six months before its remains were located. When located, the carcass was crushed, the head and limbs were still remaining and intact, and there were no obvious signs of scavenging or predation (tooth marks, gnashes, tears). A relatively wellused, Bureau of Land Management-designated dirt road was approximately 300 m from where the carcass was located. The most likely cause of death, based on the condition of remains, was crushing by a vehicle. The tortoise was probably transported to the site by a person to conceal the death. The other two tortoises, 4548F and 4441M, were found dead in the open, with no evidence of predation; the head and limbs were still intact. Both tortoises moved large distances during the summer months prior to their deaths, and the expenditures of energy may have contributed to the causes of death. Combining data for both sexes and both years, death rates varied significantly among translocation plots (Fishers exact test, p < 0.001); 12 of the tortoises that died were located on plot 1.5, 24 were located on plot 3, 26 were located on plot 5, and eight were located on plot 8. More dead tortoises were females (42) than males (28), but the difference was not statistically significant (Fishers exact test, p = 0.126). Death rates did not differ among health categories (i.e. groups to which tortoises were assigned prior to translocation; Fishers exact test, p = 0.7918); 21 tortoises with clinical signs of shell disease died, followed by 17 tortoises with clinical signs of trauma, 16 healthy tortoises, and 16 tortoises with clinical signs of URTD. The size of a tortoise was not related to risk of death, as the average carapace length of tortoises that died did not differ from those still alive (F 1,137 = 1.719, p = 0.192). However, tortoises that died in 2009 were larger than those that died in 2008 (mean MCL SE = 246.5 4.7 mm vs. 231.7 3.7; F 1,68 =6.05, p = 0.016). Males were driving the statistical difference between years. Males dying in 2009 were significantly larger than those dying in 2008 (MCL = 262.5 7.5 mm vs. 226.3 8.1 mm; F 1,26 = 10.67, p = 0.003), whereas sizes of females were not

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

10

significantly different between years (MCL = 226.5 4.5 mm in 2009 vs. 234.0 2.8 mm in 2008; F 1,40 = 1.98, p = 0.167). For data from 2009 alone, there was a significant effect of translocation plot on death rates (Fishers exact test, p = 0.005; see Table 4), with again the highest rates on plots 3 and 5. Seven of the remaining 32 tortoises on plot 1.5 died in 2009, compared to six of the remaining 16 on plot 3, ten of the remaining 15 on plot 5, and four of the remaining 31 on plot 8. In 2009 alone, there was no difference in death rates among the sexes (Fishers exact test, p = 0.501); 11 of the remaining 45 females died compared to 16 of the 51 remaining males. Three of the 43 tortoises found dead in 2008 (4014F, 4720F, 4011F) previously had suspect ELISA tests for mycoplasmosis. In 2009, eleven of the 27 tortoises found dead had previous positive or suspect tests for M. testudineum (2533M positive in spring 2009; 4024M suspect in spring 2009; 4136F, 2023M, 2557F, 4179F, 4644F, 4085F, 4106M, 4361M, and 4442M suspect in fall 2008). Several of these tortoises had suspect ELISA tests for M. testudineum from fall 2008, a season with an unexpectedly high number of suspect tests for this species (Berry et al. 2009). Of the initial 158 translocated tortoises, 20 tortoises (17.4%, 20/115) were unable to be located in December 2009 and are considered missing. Of the 20 currently missing tortoises, six had their radiotransmitters detached by a predator or otherwise, and the radiotransmitter signals of the remaining 14 are inaudible at previously known locations. As of December 2009, the locations of 68 live tortoises were known. The sex ratio of these tortoises (32 females and 36 males) is not significantly different than the sex ratio in December 2008 (X2 = 0.05, df = 1, p = 0.82). DISCUSSION The results for the second year of the SEA translocation project reveal that the death rate of translocated tortoises is still high. In January 2009, 115 tortoises were known to be alive or missing. By the end of 2009, 23.5% of the tortoises had died and an additional 17.4% either remained missing or were newly missing. Overall, in December 2009, 40.9% had either been found dead or were still missing. Combining the data from 2008 and 2009, from the time of initial translocation of 158 tortoises in March-April of 2008, 70 (44.3%) tortoises have died and an additional 20 (12.7%) are missing. As in the first year, predation by coyote continues to be the primary cause of deaths (Table 4). Overall, death rates were highest in the months immediately following translocation in 2008 and in the spring and fall of 2009 (Fig. 8). These time frames correspond to when tortoises were active and spending more time above-ground (i.e., just after translocation to a novel location, foraging in spring, and seeking mating opportunities in late summer/fall; see Fig. 7). Correspondingly, death rates were lowest in the winter of 2008 and summer of 2009 when tortoises spent more time in welldeveloped cover sites. While death rates were higher among females and smaller tortoises in 2008 (Berry et al. 2009), this was not the case in 2009. There is an apparent

10

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

11

trend that predation was initially highest among small females, but now larger males are also targets of predation (Fig. 9). This pattern may be an artifact of fewer females on the study plots after the initial wave of predation, or it may signify that coyotes have increased their abilities to successfully prey upon the larger male tortoises. Disease may be an important factor in predation. A substantial portion of the tortoises that died in 2009 (40.7%) had previously tested positive or suspect for mycoplasmosis after being translocated. This figure includes all tortoises in the project, regardless of health group. We need to conduct further research and analysis on effects of health and disease on survival. Between 2008 and 2009, the proportion of tortoises with suspect or positive ELISA tests increased for M. agassizii but decreased for M. testudineum. In the spring and fall of 2009, 4.9% and 9.2% of tortoises had positive or suspect ELISA tests for M. agassizii. These proportions of ELISA suspect and positive tortoises for M agassizii are higher than in 2008 (Berry et al. 2009) and higher than reported for 669 tortoises sampled in and around the SEA in 2007 (Berry and Mack 2008). Similar to findings in 2008 (Berry et al. 2009), tortoises with positive or suspect tests for M. agassizii are concentrated on or near plots 1.5 and 8 (Figs. 2 and 4). Three individuals had multiple positive or suspect tests for M agassizii during 2008 and 2009 (Table 1). In the spring of 2009, two tortoises (2.5%) had positive or suspect ELISA tests for M. testudineum. These two tortoises were killed by predators during summer and thus could not be sampled in fall. All remaining tortoises had negative tests for M. testudineum in the fall. While the proportion of tortoises with positive or suspect tests in spring of 2008 and 2009 are similar, there is a notable discrepancy when comparing rates from the fall seasons of the same years, 31.5% in 2008 vs. 0% in 2009 (Berry et al. 2009). Shifts from positive or suspect ELISA tests for M. testudineum to negative status may be due to the quality of blood samples and dilution with lymph, the virulence of Mycoplasma spp., timing of sampling in fall, variations in the tests, or other factors. Weight can be an important indicator of overall health (Henen et al. 1998; Christopher et al. 1999, 2003; Berry et al. 2002). Weight may reflect hydration status, expenditures of energy, availability of food and water, ability of a tortoise to find food and water, and health status. The seasonal differences in weight between spring, summer, and fall observed in the SEA tortoises are comparable to previous studies of desert tortoise populations; weight is generally higher in the spring than in fall (Christopher et al. 1999). However, the decrease in weight between the 2008 and 2009 fall seasons is of concern, and weight should continue to be monitored in conjunction with health assessments or more frequently. The data on movement patterns of translocated tortoises will be useful for determining the appropriate size for future translocation release sites, the effects of translocation on behavior, and potentially, the effects of habitat type and quality on behavior. Our preliminary results show that translocated tortoises may disperse up to 13 km from their release location within the first two years. Therefore future managers and

11

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

12

scientists responsible for designing and managing translocations should consider translocation sites with a buffer zone of suitable habitat at least this large in each direction. Additionally, only 18 of the initial 158 tortoises have not dispersed from the one square mile release plots, indicating the need for translocation sites with much larger areas of quality habitat. In some regards, the translocated tortoises in this study have exhibited movement patterns similar to those reported in previous studies. Differences exist between sexes, with males moving more than females (Berry 1986, OConnor et al. 1994), and differences exist between seasons, with higher activity levels in the spring and fall compared to the summer and winter when temperature extremes and/or lack of water limit above ground activity (see Fig. 7; Henen 1997, Henen et al. 1998, Nagy and Medica 1986). Tortoises moved less in 2009 compared to 2008, the year in which tortoises were first translocated, and some tortoises have repeatedly used the same cover sites. These results suggest that some translocated tortoises have begun to settle into the new sites and may be establishing home ranges, a first step in assimilating with the resident population. Also of note is that movements were greater (statistically in 2008 [Berry et al. 2009], but not for both years combined) on plots 3 and 5 compared to plots 1.5 and 8. Plots 3 and 5 also had higher death rates, and the possible relationship between increased movement and risk of mortality deserves further attention. Continued work on this project will be directed at addressing the previously stated objectives. Health, including prevalence of mycoplasmosis and other diseases, weight, and general condition, of translocated tortoises will continue to be monitored at regular intervals by incorporating clinical signs of disease recorded during health evaluations with ELSIA test results. Signs of trauma and shell disease, along with signs of URTD, will be analyzed to determine the effects of translocation and anthropogenic impacts on these variables and whether or not incidences of disease and trauma have increased since translocation. The survival and movement patterns of translocated tortoises will continue to be monitored to assess the success of translocation. Finally, habitat characteristics, including topography, foraging and cover site availability, and levels of anthropogenic impacts, will be compared between initial capture sites and translocation release sites as well as among the four translocation plots. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This report does not contain a complete analysis of all health data for the translocated tortoises, between the time of translocation and December 2009, e.g., the analysis of changes in clinical signs between seasons and years. This analysis will be conducted as time permits. 2. The abnormally high death rates that began shortly after the initial translocation in March and April of 2008 have continued, and have again risen to high levels in the fall of 2009. The high death rates are primarily the result of canid (coyote) predation. The result has been loss of a significant portion of the sample population. Scientists have reported high death rates of tortoises from predators in other Ft. Irwin studies and in other research projects in California and Nevada during the last few years, and have summarized findings in a draft manuscript for the open literature (Esque et al.,

12

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

13

unpublished paper). Little or no action has been taken (depending on the site) by managing agencies to mitigate the impact to tortoise populations. In our study, which is in critical habitat, we designed the health and disease project to provide valuable information for recovery efforts and to mitigate some impacts of the translocation. Unfortunately, the high death rates have compromised the quality and quantity of data, as well as our ability to achieve many of the initial research objectives. Many elements of the research project will need to be repeated in future translocation efforts using a more robust sample if we are to achieve our initial goals. 3. Based on the unpublished manuscript by Esque et al. on predation, the high death rate from translocatees appears to be influenced by proximity to urban/rural areas and topographical features. There may be other local factors that contribute to elevated populations of coyotes and other predators of tortoises, including proximity to old agricultural fields, roads, trails, and recreation. The younger and smaller subadult and adult tortoises are probably more vulnerable than larger, older tortoises. We need to explore and analyze any and all factors that may affect predation of tortoises and the success of the future translocation of tortoises from the Western Expansion Area to the Western Expansion Translocation Area prior to moving tortoises. 4. Based on unexplained deaths of two tortoises during 2009 (4548F in September 2009, 4441M in August 2009), we may need to increase the health sampling of tortoises from twice per year to three or four times per year or once per season. Additional sampling may be limited to weighing the tortoises and conducting an abbreviated health evaluation (no drawing of blood or taking a nasal lavage). 5. The ELISA test for M. testudineum needs to be validated for G. agassizii. (This recommendation is repeated from Berry et al. [2009]). This research project is a very high priority, is essential to resolving questions about translocation, and should be undertaken with appropriate financial support as soon as possible. Until the test is validated, we will have continuing questions about the test and cut-off points for suspect and positive titers. We will be able to make better decisions about translocatees if the validation research has been completed. 6. Quality of Habitat (a recommendation repeated from Berry et al. [2009]). The quality of habitat where translocated tortoises were placed is a topic that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Were the locations appropriate and if not, why not? As we can see from our data, death rates were highest on plots 3 and 5 and movements of tortoises from their original release points were highest on plot 3 and lower on plots 1.5. The soils, surficial geology, vegetative cover and composition of shrubs, elevation, and potential food sources should be evaluated retrospectively for each release site and for the original home sites as soon as possible to reveal critical factors essential to improving the chances for successful translocations. We plan to initiate such a study in 2010.

Acknowledgements. Dr. Mary Brown and Dr. Lori Wendland of the University of Florida are collaborators on this project. They provided valuable advice on interpretations and will be co-authors on any future publications for the open literature. Dr. Elliott Jacobson, also of 13

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

14

the University of Florida at Gainesville, is the pathologist. For tracking, monitoring, and conducting health evaluations of tortoises, we thank Marcella Waggoner, Jeremy Mack, Nate Newman, Kemp Anderson, Rafe McGuire, Sally Boisvert, Tim Hockin, Jessica Kayser, Cynthia Furman, Kevin Walsh, Tonya Rasmussen, Sara Hanner, Al DeMartini, John Boswell, Kevin Lucas, Aaron Keller, Irene Alexakos, Ben Kirkpatrick, Chris Hatton, and John Hillman, Kristina Drake coordinated fieldwork with USGS scientists at the Las Vegas Field Station. Thanks are due to K. Phillips for review and to C. Everly for advice. The National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, provided financial support.

REFERENCES Berry, K.H. 1986. Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Relocation: Implications of social behavior and movements. Herpetologica 42(1):113-125. Berry, K.H. 2006. Progress Report for 2005. The Health Status of Resident Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in the Fort Irwin Translocation Area, San Bernardino County, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Moreno Valley, California. Final Report to National Training Center and Ft. Irwin, California. 15pp with appendices. Berry, K.H. and M.M. Christopher. 2001. Guidelines for the field evaluation of desert tortoise health and disease. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37(3): 427-450. Berry, K.H., and J. Mack. 2008. Progress Report for 2007. The Health Status of Resident Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in the Fort Irwin Translocation Area, San Bernardino County, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Moreno Valley, California. Final Report to National Training Center and Ft. Irwin, California. Berry, K.H., E. K. Spangenberg, B. L. Homer, and E.R. Jacobson. 2002. Deaths of desert tortoises following periods of drought and research manipulation. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:436-448. Berry, K.H., L.D. Wendland, A. Demmon, and M.B. Brown. 2005. A comparison of lymph and plasma sample results from ELISA tests for Mycoplasma agassizii in desert tortoises. Presentation and Abstract from the 30th Annual Desert Tortoise Council Symposium, held in Tucson, Arizona. February 2005. Berry, K.H., A. Demmon, T. Bailey, and J. Mack. 2006. Protocols for drawing blood from the brachial plexus and subcarapacial site of desert tortoises: Instructions for Ordering Equipment and Culture Media; Summary of How to Draw Blood and Information on How to Contract for Laboratory Analysis and Shipping Laboratory Samples. Appendix on New Technique for Conducting Nasal Lavages by L. Wendland. U.S. Geological Survey, Moreno Valley, CA. 14 p. Berry, K.H., T.A. Gowan, and J.S. Mack. 2009. Progress Report for 2008. The health status, survival, and movements of 158 translocated Desert Tortoises (Gopherus

14

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

15

agassizii) in the Southern Expansion Area of the Fort Irwin Translocation Area, San Bernardino County, California: Year 1. U. S. Geological Survey, Moreno Valley, CA. Final Report to National Training Center and Ft. Irwin, California. Brown, M.B., I.M. Shumacher, P.A. Klein, K. Harris, T. Correll, and E.R. Jacobson. 1994. Mycoplasma agassizii causes upper respiratory tract disease in the desert tortoise. Infection and Immunity 62(10):4580-4586. Brown, M.B., K.H. Berry, I.M. Schumacher, K.A. Nagy, M.M. Christopher, and P.A. Klein. 1999. Seroepidemiology of upper respiratory tract disease in the desert tortoise in the western Mojave Desert of California. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35(4):716-727. Brown, D.R., I.M. Schumacher, G.S. McLaughlin, L.D. Wendland, M.B. Brown, P.A. Klein, and E. R. Jacobson. 2002. Application of diagnostic tests for mycoplasmal infections of desert and gopher tortoises, with management recommendations. Chelonian Conservation Biology 4(2):497-507. Brown, D.R., J.L. Merritt, E. R. Jacobson, P.A. Klein, J.G. Tully, and M.B. Brown. 2004. Mycoplasma testudineum sp. nov., from a desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) with upper respiratory tract disease. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 45(5):1527-1529. Christopher, M.M., K.H. Berry, I.R Wallis, K.A. Nagy, B.T. Henen, and C.C. Peterson. 1999. Reference intervals and physiologic alterations in hematologic and biochemical values of free-ranging desert tortoises in the Mojave Desert. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35:212-238. Christopher, M.M., K.H. Berry, B.T. Henen, and K.A. Nagy. 2003. Clinical disease and laboratory abnormalities in free-ranging desert tortoises in California (19901995). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39:35-56. Esque, T.C., K.E. Nussear, and P.A. Medica. 2005. Desert tortoise translocation plan for Fort Irwin's Land Expansion Program at the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) & Fort Irwin. U.S. Geological Survey, Henderson, Nevada. 24 June 2005. Gottdenker, N.L., and E.R. Jacobson. 1995. Effect of venipuncture sites on hematologic and clinical biochemical values in desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). American Journal of Veterinary Research 56(1):19-21. Henen, B.T. 1997. Seasonal and annual energy budgets of female desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Ecology 78(1):283-296.

15

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

16

Henen, B.T., C.C. Peterson, I.R. Wallis, K.H. Berry, and K.A. Nagy. 1998. Effects of climate variation on field metabolism and water relations of desert tortoises. Oecologia 117:365-373. Hernandez-Divers, S.M., S.J. Hernandez-Divers, and J. Wyneken. 2002. Angiographic, anatomic and clinical technique descriptions of a subcarapacial venipuncture site for chelonians. Journal of Herpetological Medicine and Surgery 12(2):32-37. Homer, B.L., K.H. Berry M.B. Brown, G. Ellis, and E.R. Jacobson. 1998. Pathology of diseases in desert tortoises from California. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 34(3):508-523. Jacobson, E.R., J.M. Gaskin, M.B. Brown, R.K. Harris, C.H. Gardiner, J.L. LaPointe, H.P. Adams, and C. Reggiardo. 1991. Chronic upper respiratory tract disease of free-ranging desert tortoises (Xerobates agassizii). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 27:296-316. Nagy, K.A. and P.A Medica. 1986. Physiological ecology of desert tortoises in Southern Nevada. Herpetologica 42(1):73-92. OConnor, M.P., L.C. Zimmerman, D. E. Ruby, S.J. Bulova, and J.R. Spotila. 1994. Home range size and movements by desert tortoises, Gopherus agassizii, in the Eastern Mojave Desert. Herpetological Monographs 8:60-71. Schumacher, I.M., M.B. Brown, E.R. Jacobson, B.R. Collins, and P.A. Klein. 1993. Detection of antibodies to a pathogenic mycoplasma in desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) with upper respiratory tract disease. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 31:1454-1460. SYSTAT Software Inc. 2007. SYSTAT 12.0 Statistics. SYSTAT Software Inc., Richmond, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register 55(63):12178-12191. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. The Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 73 pp and appendices. Wendland, L., L.A. Zacher, P.A. Klein, D.R. Brown, D. Demcovitz, R. Littell, and M.B. Brown. 2007. Improved Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay to reveal Mycoplasma agassizii exposure: A valuable tool in the management of environmentally sensitive tortoise populations. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 14:1190-1195.

16

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

17

Table 1. Previous ELISA test results for desert tortoises with positive or suspect tests in 2009. Green cells represent negative status, orange cells represent suspect, and red cells represents positive.

M. agassizii M. testudineum ID Sex Plot Sp08 Fa08 Sp09 Fa09 Sp08 Fa08 Sp09 Fa09 4410 M 8 2040 M 8 4166 F 1.5 4423 F 3 2533 M 1.5 N/A N/A 4024 M 1.5 N/A N/A 4257 F 1.5 4300 M 1.5 4611 F 8

Table 2. Summary statistics for movement variables of translocated desert tortoises from March 2008 through December 2009. Maximum (m) 12,567.3 18,814.4 Minimum (m) 275.2 1,070.7 Mean (m) 2,438.3 5,274.2 SD 2,203.6 3,280.7 N 68 68

Dispersal distance Minimum total distance

Table 3. Counts of translocated desert tortoises that are still remaining (On Plot) or that have dispersed (Off Plot) from the boundaries of their initial release plots. On Plot M F 5 1 1 1 0 1 4 5 Off Plot M 8 5 5 8 F 10 3 1 10 Total 24 10 7 27

Plot 1.5 3 5 8

17

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

18

Table 4. Summary of translocated desert tortoises found dead in 2009.

ID 2038 4136 4162 4554 2533 4024 4060 2557 4179 2023 4158 4239 4640 2550 4288 4548 4556 4644 4073 4108 4129 4291 4442 4085 4106 4361 4441 Sex F F F F M M M F F M M M M F F F F F M M M M M F M M M Plot 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 MCL 214 201 227 211 260 255 275 206 240 267 266 274 263 211 229 227 280 232 262 266 284 262 273 223 265 211 246 Date Located 22-Sep-09 20-Oct-09 22-Sep-09 4-May-09 13-Aug-09 22-Sep-09 22-Oct-09 4-May-09 24-Feb-09 22-Apr-09 22-Apr-09 22-Apr-09 4-May-09 23-Sep-09 18-Mar-09 23-Sep-09 21-Oct-09 23-Apr-09 14-Aug-09 14-Apr-09 23-Sep-09 21-Oct-09 08-Dec-09 15-Apr-09 16-Apr-09 15-Apr-09 18-Aug-09 Notes Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by canid Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Cause of death unknown; no signs of predation Likely predation by coyote Crushed shell, probable vehicle kill Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Likely predation by coyote Cause of death unknown; no signs of predation

18

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

19

Fig 1. Overview map of the Ft. Irwin Southern Expansion Area and translocation plots.

19

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

20

Fig 2. Results of ELISA tests for Mycoplasma agassizii from desert tortoises sampled in spring of 2009.

20

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

21

Fig 3. Results of ELISA tests for Mycoplasma testudineum from desert tortoises sampled in spring of 2009.

21

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

22

Fig 4. Results of ELISA tests for Mycoplasma agassizii from desert tortoises sampled in fall of 2009.

22

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

23

Fig 5. Results of ELISA tests for Mycoplasma testudineum from desert tortoises sampled in fall of 2009.

23

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

24

Fig 6. Mean ( SE) weight of desert tortoises (n=64) in four seasons post-translocation.

3500

3000

Weight (g)

2500

2000

1500

1000 Spring 08 Fall 08 Spring 09 Fall 09

24

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

25

Fig 7. Mean ( SE) distances moved by desert tortoises for each month after translocation.

1800 1500

Males Females

Distance (m)

1200 900 600 300 0

ar -0 A 8 pr M 08 ay -0 Ju 8 n0 Ju 8 lA 08 ug -0 Se 8 p0 O 8 ct N 08 ov -0 D 8 ec -0 Ja 8 n0 Fe 9 b0 M 9 ar -0 A 9 pr M 09 ay -0 Ju 9 n0 Ju 9 lA 09 ug -0 Se 9 p0 O 9 ct N 09 ov D 09 ec -0 9

Month

25

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

26

Fig 8. Percent of desert tortoises found dead (# dead/# remaining) by season for the first 20 months after translocation.

14 12

% Located Dead

10 8 6 4 2 0 Spring 08 Summer 08 Fall 08 Winter 08 Spring 09 Summer 09 Fall 09

Season

26

Gowan and Berry. 2009. Progress Report on the Health Status of Translocated Tortoises in the Southern Expansion Area.

27

Fig 9. Mean MCL (carapace length at midline, mm) of desert tortoises located dead for each month after translocation. Note the increase in size of males found dead over time and the decrease in size of females.

Mean MCL (mm) of Dead Tortoises

300
R = 0.4988
2

250

200

R = 0.1124

Males

150

Females Linear (Males) Linear (Females)

100 0 5 10 15 20 25 Months Post-Translocation

27