Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for Continued Operation of Lawrence

F.2 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

This biological assessment addresses the status of threatened, endangered, and other species of concern (referred to as sensitive species) that may occur or are known to occur at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore. This assessment was prepared pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the State of California Endangered Species Act.

Federal agencies are required by Section 7 (a)(2) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) to insure that their actions are "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. . . ."

The California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 through 2098) includes provisions intended to protect threatened and endangered species that may be affected by development projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The Endangered Species Act states that agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available that would conserve the species or its habitat.

This biological assessment presents the results of surveys conducted for federal and state endangered and threatened species; federal candidate plant and animal species; and state species of special concern. These surveys were conducted to determine what impacts, if any, the proposed action and the alternatives would have on these species and to assure compliance with the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts for activities undertaken at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore.

Consultation under Section 7 of the U.S. Endangered Species Act was initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with a February 6, 1991 letter sent to their office in Sacramento requesting a list of endangered, threatened, and other species of concern that may occur or are known to occur at the LLNL and SNL, Livermore sites. A response received on March 5, 1991, provided two lists, one for LLNL Site 300 and one for the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore (Attachment 1). Two endangered, 1 threatened, and 13 candidate species were listed for LLNL Site 300; and 2 endangered and 12 candidate species were listed for the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore (Table F-11).

Subsequently, a meeting was held on April 9, 1991, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel to discuss the proposed action and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS/EIR and the proposed study plan to assess the species listed in the March 5, 1991, letter. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel were in agreement with the proposed studies, although it was recommended that the San Joaquin kit fox survey be expanded to include the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore, and that LLNL Site 300 be resurveyed for the kit fox after the annual controlled burn for 1991.

DOE and UC began informal consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game on March 12, 1991, when letters describing the proposed action were sent to Region 2 (for LLNL Site 300) and Region 3 (for the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore). The letters received no responses. Personnel from the California Department of Fish and Game were invited, but did not attend an April 9 meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Communication with the California Department of Fish and Game nonetheless has been maintained with biologists from Regions 2 and 3, and with biologists from the Environmental Services Division in Sacramento. The California Department of Fish and Game, commenting on the proposed EIS/EIR at the scoping meeting, expressed concern for two species that were not listed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter: the San Joaquin pocket mouse and riparian woodrat. These two species are addressed in this biological assessment.

Surveys for additional sensitive species were conducted in 1991. These include species of invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Table F-12) and plants (Table F-13).

This biological assessment was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game on September 24, 1991 and the biological opinions were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on February 20, 1992, and the California Department of Fish and Game on October 23, 1991. The biological opinions from both agencies, as well as responses to their letters, are included as Attachment 2.

Table F-11 Federal Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species That May Occur at the LLNL Livermore Site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore

Species and Common Name	Study Site		Status
Species and Common Name	LLNL Site 300	LLNL Livermore Site and SNL, Livermore	Endangered	Threatened	Candidate
Palmate bird's-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus)		X	X
Large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora)	X		X
Valley elderberry longhorned beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)	X			X
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes mocrotis mutica)	X	X	X
Valley spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana)		X			X²
Hispid bird's-beak (Cordylanthus mollis hispidus)		X			X²
Contra Costa buckwheat (Eriogonum truncaturm)	X				X²*
Diamond-petaled poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala)	X				X²
Hairless allocarya (Plagiobothrys glaber)		X			X²
Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum)	X				X²
Caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum)	X				X²
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)	X	X			X^1R
California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis)	X	X			X^1R
Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio)	X	X			X^1R
Longhorned fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna)	X	X			X^1R
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum californiense)	X	X			X²
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni)	X	X			X²
Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus)	X	X			X²
Pacific western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii)	X	X			X²
Greater western mastiff-bat (Eumops perotis californicus)	X	X			X²

^1R Recommended for Category 1 status. Category 1 taxa are species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient data to support a proposal to list them as endangered or threatened.
² Category 2 taxa are species for which existing information may warrant listing, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking.
^* Possibly extinct.

Table F-12 Sensitive Species That May Occur at the LLNL Livermore Site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore That Were Not on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Lists

Species and Common Name	Status
Species and Common Name	Federal	State
Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle (Hydrochara rickseckeri)	Candidate- Category 2*	---
Curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes)	Candidate- Category 2*	---
Molestan blister beetle (Lytta molesta)	Candidate- Category 2*	---
Callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe)	Candidate- Category 2*	---
California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale)	---	Species of special concern
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)	---	California protected and Species of special concern
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)	Endangered	Endangered
Black-shouldered kite (Elanus caeruleus)	---	California protected
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi)	---	Species of special concern
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)	---	Species of special concern
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)	---	Species of special concern
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)	Endangered	Endangered
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)	---	Species of special concern
Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)	---	Threatened
Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)	---	Species of special concern
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)	---	Species of special concern
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)	Candidate- Category 2*	---
San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus)	Candidate- Category 2*	---
Riparian woodrat(Neotoma fuscipes riparia)	Candidate- Category 2*	Species of special concern
Badger (Taxidea taxus)	---	Species of special concern

* Category 2 taxa are species for which existing information may warrant listing, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking.

Table F-13 Status, Distribution, and Habitat of Rare Plants with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of LLNL Site 300 and SNL, Livermore

Species and Common Name^a	USFWS Listing^b	State Status^c	CNPS Status^a	Habitat Type^a,d	Distribution by County^a
San Joaquin saltbush (Atriplex patula ssp. spicata^e)	Category 2	---	?-?-3 List 3	Alkaline meadows, chenopod scrub	ALA COL MER
Large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora^e)	Endangered	Endangered	3-3-3 List 1B	Valley grassland slopes below 1200 ft	ALA CCA* SJQ
Mt. Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulchellus^e)	---	---	1-1-2 List 4	Cismontane woodland, chaparral	CCA
Hispid bird's-beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. hispidus)	Category 2	---	2-3-3 List 1B	Alkaline meadows	ALA KRN MER PLA SOL
Palmate bird's-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus)	Endangered	Endangered	3-3-3 List 1B	Alkaline grasslands, chenopod scrub	ALA COL FRE MAD* SJQ* YOL
Hoover's cryptantha (Cryptantha hooveri^e)	---	---	1-2-3 List 4	Coarse sandy soil in grasslands	ALA CCA MAD MER SJQ STA
Gypsum-loving larkspur (Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. gypsophilum^e)	---	---	1-1-3 List 4	Grasslands, atriplex scrub	FRE KNG KRN MAD MER MNT SJQ STA
Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum)	Category 2*	---	P.E. List 1A	Dry grassy slopes, chaparral and scrub	ALA* CCA SOL*
Diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala)	Category 2	---	3-3-3 List 1B	Dry, gravelly or grassland slopes	ALA* CCA COL* SJQ SLO STA*
Stinkbells (Fritillaria agrestis)	Category 3	---	1-1-3 List 4	Adobe soils in grassland or foothill woodland	ALA CCA KRN MEN MNT SBT SLO STA
Great Valley gumplant (Grindelia camporum var. parviflora)	---	---	1-1-3 List 4	Valley-foothill grassland	ALA CCA MRN RIV SBT SFO SMT
Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea)	Category 2	---	3-2-3 List 1B	Grassy slopes in woodland savannah, chaparral	ALA CCA SFO* SMT
Brewer's dwarf flax (Hesperolinon beweri^e)	Category 2	---	3-2-3 List 1B	Serpentine slopes in chaparral and grassland	CCA NAP SOL
Mt. Diablo cottonweed (Stylocline amphibola^e)	---	---	1-1-3 List 4	Rocky or gravelly soils in chaparral, woodlands	ALA CCA LAK MRN NAP SON
Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum)	Category 2*	---	P.E. List 1A	Grasslands in valleys and swales	ALA* MEN* MRN* NAP* SCL* SOL* SON*
Caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum)	Category 2*	---	P.E. List 1A	Grasslands in alkaline hills below 500 ft	ALA* CCA* GLE* MNT* SCL* SJQ*

^a Nomenclature corresponds to Smith and Berg (1988). The three numbers refer to the rarity, endangerment, and distribution of the plant respectively.
Counties abbreviated by a three-letter code; * = plants presumed extinct in these counties.
^b Category 1 (Under review, sufficient information to justify listing).
Category 2 (Under review, insufficient information).
Category 2* (Species possibly extinct). Category 3c (Not presently threatened) (56 Fed. Reg., 1991).
^c Section 1904, California Fish and Game Code (January 1989 listing) (California Department of Fish and Game, 1989).
^d Munz and Keck (1968); Bowerman (1944); Sharsmith (1945).
^e Potentially occurs only at LLNL Site 300.

F.2.1 Project Description Location

The LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are located about 40 miles east of San Francisco at the southeastern end of the Livermore Valley in southern Alameda County, California (Figure F-5). The central business district of the City of Livermore is about 3 miles to the west. The LLNL Livermore site occupies essentially all of Section 12, T3S, R2E of the United States Geological Survey Altamont Quadrangle, California, and a portion of Sections 1, 2, and 11 for a total area of 1.3 sq mi (821 acres). SNL, Livermore occupies 0.64 sq mi (413 acres) of the northern half of Section 13 of the same quadrangle. Lands to the north are zoned industrial, although present usage is mostly agricultural. Lands to the east and south are zoned agricultural and lands to the west are zoned residential.

LLNL Site 300, located about 15 miles southeast of LLNL Livermore Site (Figure F-5) in the sparsely populated hills of the Diablo Range, is operated by LLNL primarily as a non-nuclear high explosives testing facility. This site covers an area of about 11 sq mi (approximately 7000 acres). About one-sixth of the site lies in Alameda County, the remainder in San Joaquin County.

History

LLNL Livermore Site

Before World War II, the present-day LLNL Livermore site was part of the Wagoner Ranch; cattle grazing was the dominant land use. The Navy purchased the site in 1942, and established the Livermore Naval Air Station as a flight-training base. Runways were constructed near the center of the site with a rectangular grid street system along the southern portion of the site (UC, 1987).

The transition from Navy operations to a research facility began in 1950 when the California Research and Development Corporation (a subsidiary of Standard Oil, Inc.) began construction of the Materials Test Accelerator facility as authorized by the Atomic Energy Commission. In 1951, the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley began using some of the Livermore facilities in support of nuclear weapons research being conducted by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico (UC, 1987).

In 1952, the University of California established a second laboratory dedicated to nuclear weapons research. The University of California operated what is now called Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the Atomic Energy Commission from 1952 to 1975, then for the Energy Research and Development Agency (DOE's predecessor) until 1977; and since that time for DOE (UC, 1987).

LLNL Site 300

The rugged topography at what is now LLNL Site 300 limited prior land use to sheep and cattle grazing. Land for the site was purchased in 1953 by the Atomic Energy Commission and began to operate in 1955 as an area in which to perform high explosives testing in support of LLNL's mission. The remote location of the site provides a buffer zone for public safety, yet it is relatively close to the LLNL Livermore site. Although testing at the site has expanded as a result of increasing program activities, in 1973 DOE transferred 100 acres of excess property to the State of California for an ecological preserve (UC, 1987).

SNL, Livermore

Engineering research and development associated with nuclear ordnance originated at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. Ordnance engineering was separated from nuclear design activities when Sandia National Laboratories (then called Sandia Laboratory) was established in Albuquerque in 1949. Since then Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) have been operated through a contract between Sandia Corporation and DOE. In 1956 SNL established a Livermore branch, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, to provide a closer relationship with LLNL (SNL, 1989).

Description of Current Major Programs

LLNL is a multiprogram national laboratory operated by UC for DOE. It undertakes multidisciplinary fundamental and applied research and development activities in a broad range of scientific and technical fields and maintains close interaction with scientific and technical personnel within universities and industry. LLNL's primary mission has always been the design of nuclear weapons; however, major new research programs have been developed in response to national needs. Major research programs include defense systems, laser fusion (also called inertial confinement fusion), laser isotope separation, magnetic fusion, biomedical and environmental research, environmental restoration and waste management, and energy resources. In addition, LLNL has a number of multiprogram and general purpose facilities that support all laboratory programs.

LLNL Site 300 is a high explosive test facility that supports the LLNL weapons program in the research, development, and testing associated with the nuclear weapons life cycle. This work includes explosive processing, including the preparation of new explosives and the pressing, machining, and assembly of components that use pressed explosives. It also includes hydrodynamic testing for experimental verification of computer codes, obtaining equation-of-state data for weapons materials, obtaining data on material behavior at assembly joints and welds, evaluating the quality and uniformity of implosion, and performance evaluation of post-nuclear test design modification.

SNL, Livermore, operated by Sandia Corporation for DOE, applies its scientific, technical, and engineering capabilities to meet its primary mission of national security, with principal emphasis on nuclear weapons development and engineering. In carrying out this mission, SNL, Livermore has evolved into a multiprogram laboratory undertaking multidisciplinary fundamental and applied research and development activities necessary to maintain a leading position in the broad range of scientific and technical fields. In doing so, it maintains close interaction with scientists and engineers in universities, industry, and other laboratories. SNL Livermore's mission encompasses: (1) weapons programs, which are concerned with research, development, and engineering associated with the weaponization of nuclear explosives; (2) other DOE defense programs; (3) energy research and development; and (4) scientific and institutional support to various programs in the laboratory.

F.2.2 Ecological Setting LLNL Livermore Site and SNL, Livermore

The LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore include developed areas (laboratories and other buildings and facilities) surrounded by security zones of mostly grassland. The common plant species in the security zones were ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), slender oat (Avena barbata), star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Russian thistle (Salsola kali ), turkey mullein (Eremocarpus setigerus), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), California sagebrush (Artemisia california), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum).

The least disturbed habitat is along Arroyo Seco, which runs through the SNL, Livermore site and the southwestern corner of the LLNL Livermore site. Three distinct vegetation types were identified at SNL, Livermore (Environmental Science Associates, Inc., 1990). The eastern segment of this drainage supports a remnant riparian strip consisting of several large trees, including one large sycamore (Platanus racemosa) with a 7-ft diameter at breast height (dbh), three smaller sycamores each with a 4-ft dbh, six valley oaks (Quercus lobata) each having a 3.5- to 4-ft dbh, and several red willows (Salix lasiandra). The riparian understory includes patches of mule fat (Baccharis viminea), seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), with ripgut brome and slender oat along the channel-grassland interface in most areas. Patches of cattail (Typha sp.), rush (Juncus sp.), and a high concentration of red willow occur around the existing flood control area near the eastern border of the property, where the channel widens from its normal 7-ft width to approximately 50 ft.

In contrast, the central segment of Arroyo Seco is approximately 8-ft wide and supports less diverse vegetation because of adjacent developed areas. A few valley oak, almond (Prunus amygdalus), sweet fennel, and other species characteristic of disturbed sites persist. Arroyo Seco exits the developed portion of the site from a 75-ft cement-lined channel in a flood control area. Vegetation along the arroyo includes a canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), annual grasses, and species characteristic of disturbed sites.

Vegetation within or adjacent to the western segment of the channel consists of a canopy of red willow, valley oak, and several eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) with a sparse understory of seaside heliotrope, ripgut brome, slender oat, and other early successional species. This segment of the channel measures approximately 12 ft wide and 15 ft deep, with a 4-ft diameter culvert feeding into it approximately 300 ft from where it exits the LLNL Livermore site (Environmental Science Associates, 1990).

Arroyo Seco at the LLNL Livermore site is steep-sided with the slopes covered with grass species such as slender oat and ripgut brome. Much of the arroyo has native tree species such as red willow and California walnut (Juglans hindsii), and introduced species such as black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) and almond.

A total of 3 species of amphibians and reptiles, 31 species of birds, and 10 species of mammals were observed at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. Wildlife in the area includes species that occur in the grassland security zones along with species that live in the built-up areas or along the arroyo. Species that occur in the security zone are the western fence lizard, the black-tailed hare (Lepuscalifornicus ), the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). The red fox (Vulpes vulpes ) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereourgenteus ) are also known to occur at both sites. Nesting birds within the laboratory complex include the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). These species nest in the planted trees onsite. A raven's (Corvus corax) nest was observed among some pipes on an LLNL Livermore site building. Bird species observed along Arroyo Seco include the mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).

LLNL Site 300

Four major upland plant community types occur at LLNL Site 300. Introduced grassland dominated by slender oat and ripgut brome grass, and native grasslands dominated by pine bluegrass (Poa scabrella) cover the largest area at LLNL Site 300. Coastal sage scrub plant community type is dominated by California sagebrush, California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), and snakeweed (Gutierrezia bracteata). This type typically occurs on southwest-facing slopes in the southern portion of the site. Oak woodlands dominated by blue oak (Quercus douglasii ) and to a lesser extent valley oak occur in scattered areas on steep slopes in the southern one-half of the site. The understory in this type is dominated by grassland species (ripgut brome and slender oat) (Taylor and Davilla, 1986a).

A total of 20 species of amphibians and reptiles, including two subspecies of whipsnakes, have been observed at LLNL Site 300. The scarcity of permanent water limits the potential of the study sites to support more than a few species of amphibians. Ponds occur along the perimeter of the site (see the Amphibians section below for location of ponds), and some of the drainages onsite contain aquatic vegetation supported by underground springs and seeps. Two species of salamanders were observed, the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum californiense). Frog and toad species known to occur on the site are the western toad (Bufo boreas), pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), and California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni).

Conditions are far more favorable for reptiles than amphibians, especially at LLNL Site 300. At this site, grassland provides an ideal habitat for racers and gopher snakes. Rock sites provide suitable habitat for such species as the western fence lizard, western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), and the western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis). Western rattlesnake are widespread and abundant in all habitats on the site. Seeps and springs provide excellent habitat for the northern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus coeruleus). Side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and California horned lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), more commonly found in southern California, frequent areas with more open vegetation and sandy soils (Orloff, 1986).

A total of 70 species of birds have been observed at LLNL Site 300, where an interspersion of several different habitats and an abundance of seeds and insects, offers habitat for a variety of birds. Throughout the open grassland areas western meadowlark, horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) are the most common small birds. Vegetation at springs and seeps provide nesting habitat for red-wing blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Water sources such as these attract a greater number of birds than normally found in the adjacent grasslands: for example, mourning dove, cliff and barn swallows (Hirundo pyrrhonota and H. rustica), and California quail (Callipepla californica) require daily water. Oak woodlands and a few cottonwoods provide nesting habitat for the western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), northern oriole (Icterus galbula), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). Coastal sage scrub and grasslands provide ideal habitat for mourning dove, California quail, lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena), and lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus). Rock outcrops and cliffs provide breeding sites for white-throated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis), cliff swallow, Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya), and rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus).

LLNL Site 300 supports a population of nesting raptors. Several great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and barn owl (Tyto alba) nests were found on rock ledges of steeper cliffs. The great horned owl nested onsite in 1986 and 1991 while the barn owl nested only in 1991. These cliffs may also be suitable for golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), although no nests were observed. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nests were found in 1986 and 1991. This species nested in large trees and one nest was observed on a utility pole in 1991. Areas with taller grasses may also allow ground-nesting raptors such as the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and short-eared owl (Asio flammens) to successfully breed onsite; however, nests of their species were not observed in 1991.

A total of 26 species of mammals have been observed at LLNL Site 300. Mammalian species were recorded during intensive threatened and endangered species surveys, which included ground surveys over the whole site, night spotlighting, establishment of scent stations, and small mammal trapping in 1986 (Orloff, 1986) and 1991.

Productive and diverse grasslands on LLNL Site 300 support an abundance of rodents and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares). Conditions are ideal for California ground squirrels in the northern portion of LLNL Site 300 where the terrain is less rugged. Other common rodents include the house mouse (Mus musculus); deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus); Heermann's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni ); valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae); and, in the higher grass cover, the California vole (Microtus californicus) and western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis). Lagomorphs such as black-tailed hares and desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii ) are also widespread and abundant, with the latter tending to occupy areas with more cover.

Rocky areas with associated coastal sage scrub support the California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus) and desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida). The woodrat occurs primarily in rocky areas in this northern extreme of its range.

Many mammalian predators are supported by this rich prey base. Grassland predators include long-tail weasel (Mustela frenata), western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), badger (Taxidea taxus), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). Only the badger is restricted to open grasslands. Red foxes, which have been reported from nearby areas to the east and north of the site (California Department of Fish and Game, 1983; Bio-Tech, 1983), have greatly expanded their range in the Central Valley in recent years. They show a preference for more disturbed areas, often denning in roadside culverts. Sage scrub, wooded, and riparian habitats attract other mammalian predators not normally found in grasslands, including the bobcat, gray fox, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and mountain lion (Felis concolor). Although these habitats are preferred, they are relatively limited on LLNL Site 300; consequently, grassland areas are utilized as well. Only minor amounts of riparian vegetation are associated with the seeps and springs that occur along the canyon bottoms. Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) prefer these habitats but were frequently seen in the open grasslands.

F.2.3 Impacts of Proposed Action

The EIS/EIR-proposed action is continued operation of existing facilities and near-term proposed projects (within 5 to 10 years). The proposed action includes the existing and proposed programs, projects, and facilities and is discussed in Appendix A of the EIS/EIR. Existing operations that may impact threatened and endangered species include controlled burning, exclusion of livestock grazing, absence of dry land agriculture, ground squirrel poisoning, grading and disking fire roads, vehicle traffic, fencing off facilities, explosives testing, wastewater surface impoundments, and ground water contamination. These activities are addressed in section F.2.5. Proposed projects include those that can be described with sufficient specificity to address their potential environmental impacts in this EIS/EIR.

For the purpose of this EIS/EIR, "existing facilities" means all facilities at the three sites funded for preliminary and final design (some of which are actually under construction), those that appear in the proposed DOE budget for FY 1992, and those proposed for FY 1992. (The assumption being that those proposed for FY 1992 would be funded by the end of FY 1992,)

As part of the proposed action, LLNL Site 300 will undergo a revitalization program that will provide new facilities and equipment, and upgrade existing facilities.

The six major components of the LLNL Site 300 revitalization program are:

Diagnostic equipment upgrades at Buildings 801 and 851. No land would be impacted by Building 851, while a small amount of land (0.25 acre) would be cleared at Building 801 for expansion of facilities.
High-speed optics facility at Building 850 and bunker support facility at Building 802. There would be no impact to potential threatened and endangered habitat at either building.
A central control post. Building 852 will combine the functions of two separate control facilities into a single facility capable of controlling access to both firing areas simultaneously. This would impact approximately 0.6 acres of grassland habitat.
Road improvements project. This project will reconstruct portions of several roads that are damaged or were not designed for their present use and would impact 14.5 acres of grassland habitat.
Water supply improvements. Water will be piped from the County of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy water supply system. Connection to the Hetch Hetchy Coast Range Tunnel will be made at the Thomas Shaft. Assuming that the disturbance zone for this 1.7-mile-long connection pipeline is 10 ft, approximately 2.0 acres would be disturbed. Additional onsite water system improvements would impact 1.4 acres of grassland habitat.

An additional component of the proposed action is a proposed (not funded) project to eliminate all surface run-off from the 24 cooling towers at LLNL Site 300. Flow from four of these cooling towers have created small wetlands onsite (see Appendix G for a description of these artificial wetlands), which would be eliminated by this project; however no sensitive species occur in these wetlands. The project calls for the construction of leach fields to handle the run-off from these cooling towers. The exact location of these leach fields has not been determined although they would be constructed near the cooling towers. Most of the leach fields would likely be constructed on disturbed land near each facility. For those leach fields constructed in undisturbed habitat, preconstruction surveys and other mitigative measures where appropriate, as described in section F.2.6 would be implemented.

These are the only proposed or funded activities with the potential to impact natural plant communities onsite. The total amount of land disturbed onsite from the revitalization program would be 16.8 acres onsite and 2 acres offsite. This impact would occur for both the proposed action and the no action alternative.

F.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Field surveys were conducted to assess the presence and distribution of endangered, threatened, and other species of concern at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore. Surveys focused on proposed project areas as defined in the EIS/EIR. Surveys for some species were conducted in all potential habitats. Field studies were conducted from April through June, and part of July 1991.

F.2.4.1 Rare Plants

Methods

No rare plant surveys were conducted at the LLNL Livermore site. Previous botanical surveys (Taylor and Davilla, 1986b) indicated that the occurrence of rare plants at this site was unlikely. The botanist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred (Bartel, 1991). All potential habitat at SNL, Livermore, however, was surveyed for rare plants during the proper phenologic period, including flowering and fruiting periods. (See Table F-13 for a list of potential rare plants.) Because much of the undeveloped land surrounding the SNL, Livermore site is disturbed, field work concentrated on those habitats with the best potential to support rare plants (Figure F-6). The field survey was conducted using the random time meander survey method of Nelson (1987), which involves meandering foot traverses within a given area.

Rare plant surveys at LLNL Site 300 focused on habitats with the best potential to support the large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), the species known to occur there. Surveys began April 16, 1991, and ended on April 19, 1991. The initial surveys occurred at known populations to familiarize field personnel with the plant and the habitat in which it is found. Following these initial surveys, nine canyons and seven side canyons in the southern half of LLNL Site 300 were surveyed (Figure F-7). These canyons provide the best potential habitat for large-flowered fiddleneck. A broad swathe of land surrounding Building 851 was also surveyed to investigate a reported sighting of large-flowered fiddleneck by LLNL Site 300 personnel.

Observations for other rare plants (see Table F-13) were conducted during these surveys, along with site specific clearance surveys at the proposed project areas. These included three areas where construction and five areas where road improvements are anticipated.

Results

No rare plants were found at the SNL, Livermore site. The quality of undisturbed habitats onsite ranged from poor to fair, based on general appearance, number of native species present, and proximity to disturbed land.

No new rare plant populations were found on LLNL Site 300 during the 1991 surveys. Visual observation of the two extant populations of large-flowered fiddleneck shows little change in population size from the previous year (Figure F-7). A third population of this species consisting of approximately 3000 plants was discovered in 1991 on a ranch near LLNL Site 300. In addition, a population of this species has been successfully established near Antioch, California (Pavlik, 1990), and three more populations were planted during the fall of 1990 (Pavlik, 1991).

Two populations of a the gypsum-loving larkspur (Delphinium gypsophilum gypsophilum), a California Native Plant Society List 4 species, were observed. This species is restricted to north-facing grassland habitats throughout the site. At the time of the survey, many of these plants were still in bud and were not easily observed. Surveys conducted later in the season likely would have located many more individuals.

F.2.4.2 San Joaquin Kit Fox

Methods

The major portion of the field work at the study sites consisted of determining the status of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Field surveys consisted of den and sign surveys, scent station monitoring, and night spotlighting at all three sites (Figure F-8 through Figure F-11). The level of effort and methods used were consistent with California Department of Fish and Game (n.d.) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol, and Orloff (in press).

Den surveys

Systematic variable-width transect surveys for kit fox dens were conducted in all suitable habitats. Suitable habitat was defined as grassland or sparsely-vegetated shrubland with less than 40 degrees of slope, either in isolation or in the vicinity of buildings (Orloff, in press). Surveys were conducted at the LLNL Livermore site on May 8 and 9, 1991; at LLNL Site 300 from April 15 to May 10, 1991; and at SNL, Livermore from April 30 to May 5, 1991. In performing the surveys, biologists walked 40 to 200 ft apart (averaging 100 ft), depending on vegetation height and density and degree of topographic relief. In addition, den surveys were conducted on July 15, 1991, in the controlled burn area at LLNL Site 300.

When a burrow was discovered, it was examined with a flashlight or mirror and the entrance was measured with a ruler. By evaluating the size and shape of the entrance, and by the presence of tracks, scats, or prey remains, each burrow was determined to be a known kit fox den, a potential kit fox den, or a den of another species (Table F-14). A den was considered the appropriate size and shape for a kit fox if the opening was between 4.5 and 8 inches in diameter at the narrowest measurable width, and was slightly higher than it was wide (Orloff, in press).

Kit fox dens in the northern portion of their range and in the foothills of the southern San Joaquin Valley may not have the obvious identifying characteristics of those in the southern valley floor (Orloff, Hall, and Speigel, 1986; Orloff, in press). Active kit fox dens in these outlying areas often show no sign of activity such as tracks, scats, or physical disturbance (Hall, 1983). In addition, kit fox dens are frequently used by other animals such as ground squirrels, with residency alternating within a few days of each other. This use of kit fox dens by other species, and the fact that dens in the study area might not be identifiable as active on first observation, complicate any kit fox ground survey in this portion of their range. It is therefore important to identify and record potential dens, not only because kit fox could actually be using them, but also because potential dens provide readily available burrows for future use.

In addition to conducting systematic transects for dens, areas most frequently used by the kit fox were searched for other signs (e.g., tracks or scat). These areas included dirt roads, roadside ditches, berms, drainages, and game trails.

All potential kit fox dens were mapped, and those within 100 ft of Building 802, Do-all Road, and Linac Road on LLNL Site 300 were marked with 2-ft-high wooden stakes. Potential dens observed beyond the safety fence surrounding Building 801 were also marked with wooden stakes. Potential kit fox scats and tracks found away from dens were also mapped.

Spotlighting

Spotlighting took place on 6 nights along each of three routes using methods recommended by the California Department of Fish and Game (n.d.) and Orloff (in press). Roads leading to and within undeveloped areas up to 2 miles east of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore sites were spotlighted (Figure F-11). Routes were also spotlighted at LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-10) and the surrounding area (Figure F-12). On LLNL Site 300, vehicles were equipped with roof-mounted spotlights, while a biologist held a 400,000-candlepower spotlight. On the other two routes, only hand-held lights were used. The high-beam torch was used to scan the surrounding area. When an animal's eye-shine was observed, the vehicle was stopped, the animal(s) identified, and the place and time recorded. Predator calling (i.e., imitating the sound of injured prey) was used during spotlighting surveys to draw an animal in when it was too far out of range to make a positive identification. Weather conditions, cloud cover, and moon phase were also recorded on each night of the survey.

Spotlighting surveys for the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore were conducted on April 30, and May 1, 2 and 6 to 8, 1991. Spotlighting was initiated at approximately 21:30 and concluded 5 hours later at 02:30. The survey route covered between 30 and 40 miles of road each night. Portions of the total route were omitted on some nights due to access problems.

The entire LLNL Site 300 survey route was driven on May 10, and May 13 to 17, 1991. Surveys averaged 26.5 miles, beginning at approximately 21:00 and ending 4.5 hours later at 01:30. Partial surveys of 18 miles were conducted on May 13, 14, and 17 because of security limitations that prevented access to the northeastern corner of the site. This area was later surveyed on May 29 and 30, and June 3, 1991. Surveys of the offsite area averaged 32 miles. Offsite surveys began at approximately 21:00 and ended 6 hours later at 03:00. The lack of landowner permission to enter surrounding properties limited offsite coverage.

Scent Stations

Scent stations were used to detect animals by luring them to a scent and recording their footprints in a tracking medium. Scent stations consisted of 1×1 m aluminum plates, heavily smoked with a kerosene flame, as the tracking surface (Barrett, 1983). The scent station attractant, cat food or predator survey discs, was placed in a slightly elevated position at the center of the station. Stations were checked for visitation early each morning, and tracks were cleared when necessary. Tracks were lifted from the plates by lightly pressing with a wide piece of transparent tape. Track outlines were identified using Murie (1954) and Ingles (1965), and placed in notebooks for future reference. Track plates were cleaned and the tracking medium replaced when rain, heat, or animal signs disturbed the carbon-coated surface.

Five scent stations each were placed at the LLNL Livermore site (Figure F-8) and SNL, Livermore (Figure F-9) in the most appropriate kit fox habitat. There were 6 nights of effective scent station surveys. Rain on May 1 disturbed the tracking medium, requiring checking the plates on an additional, seventh morning to achieve 6 complete scent station nights. Track plates were baited, placed in the field for a total of 10 days, and checked on the following mornings: April 30, May 2 and 6 to 9, 1991. All stations were baited with canned cat food.

Forty scent stations were placed throughout LLNL Site 300, focusing in those areas most likely to be frequented by kit fox (e.g., drainages, game trails, cottontail habitat) (Figure F-10). There were 6 nights of effective scent station surveys. Rain on May 1 disturbed the tracking medium, requiring setting the track plates for an additional night. Scent stations were in the field for a total of 10 days and checked on 6 mornings: April 30, May 2 and 6 to 9, 1991. Cat food was initially used as bait; however, ravens repeatedly consumed it and beginning the night of May 6, predator survey discs were used as a substitute attractant. These tablets are chemically treated to smell like food and are specially formulated to attract carnivores.

Aerial Survey

An aerial survey of the controlled burn areas on the north half of LLNL Site 300 was conducted on July 3, 1991 (Figure F-13). The purpose of the survey was to look for evidence of potential kit fox dens that may not have been discovered, because of the heavy vegetative cover, during the ground surveys. Dens observed from the air were investigated during a follow-up ground survey on July 15, 1991.

Results and Discussion

Den and Signs Surveys

No known kit fox dens or signs (e.g., scats or tracks) were found at the LLNL Livermore site or SNL, Livermore. At the LLNL Livermore site, one potential kit fox den was found; it was inhabited by a red fox (Figure F-8). At SNL, Livermore 17 potential kit fox dens were found (Figure F-9). Two active canid (dog family) dens were found at SNL, Livermore; one was a red fox pupping den and the other was a gray fox den.

No active kit fox dens were found at LLNL Site 300; however, 527 potential kit fox dens (Figure F-14) were located primarily on the low to mid-parts of slopes in the northern and central portions of LLNL Site 300. Dens were concentrated along Do-all Road and east of Route 4 across from Building 851. The only active canid dens found during surveys were two coyote dens. Three possible kit fox scats were observed along the northern border and a small canid track, possibly a kit fox, was observed in the northwest corner of LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-10).

Night Spotlighting

Weather during the spotlighting surveys was mostly clear skies with winds up to 30 miles per hour and an average temperature of 51·F. The moon was dark to one-eighth full. There was rain on May 1, 1991. No kit fox were observed during the night spotlighting surveys at the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites. Red fox, gray fox, and a coyote were observed (Table F-15). There were 10 observations of unidentified canids. The wildlife species most commonly observed on the spotlight surveys at these sites were feral house cats (Felis domesticus), desert cottontail, red fox, and black-tailed hare.

No kit fox were observed while night spotlighting on LLNL Site 300. One possible kit fox was observed on the offsite survey route, 1.5 miles from the northwestern corner of LNL Site 300. The most common canid, both on and off LLNL Site 300, was coyote (Table F-16).

One red fox and three unidentified canids (probably coyotes) were observed offsite.

The wildlife species most frequently observed both on and off LLNL Site 300 were desert cottontail and kangaroo rat. Black-tailed deer and coyote were also numerous on and off LLNL Site 300. Two sensitive species found on LLNL Site 300 during surveys were burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and badger.

Scent Stations

During the scent station surveys, weather was mostly clear with winds 0 to 3 miles per hour and an average temperature of 52·F. The moon was dark to one-eighth full. During surveys on May 20 and 30 and June 5, the average temperature was 52·F and the moon was full to dark.

Sixty scent station nights (one scent station night equals one night at one location when checked the next morning) were monitored at the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites. No kit fox tracks were found. The overall visitation rate was 63 percent for all wildlife species. The gray fox was the most frequent visitor at the scent stations. Other common scent station visitors were feral house cat, opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and red fox. Striped skunk and a raccoon (Procyon lotor) were the only other mammal species identified (Table F-17).

A total of 240 scent station nights were conducted at LLNL Site 300. No kit fox or other canid tracks were observed. The overall visitation rate was 30 percent for all wildlife species. The most common scent station visitors were ravens, feral house cats, and unidentified small rodents. A badger, a weasel, and two spotted skunks also left tracks at the scent stations (Table F-18).

Interviews

Interviews with Laboratory personnel from the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore indicated that small canids observed there were the red fox. Recent interviews with security officers who had sighted small canids on LLNL Site 300 did not support any likely observations of kit fox.

Aerial Survey

No known kit fox dens were identified during a July 15, 1991, follow-up ground survey to the July 3, 1991, aerial survey.

Natural History and Status of the Kit Fox

The San Joaquin kit fox was once widely distributed throughout the Central Valley of California (Grinnell et al., 1937). Since the early 1900s, loss of habitat to agricultural, industrial, and urban development has reduced the species' range and population (O'Farrell, 1983). In the last 50 years, the number of San Joaquin kit fox has declined by 20 to 43 percent (O'Farrell, 1983). The subspecies was federally listed as endangered in 1966 and classified as rare in California in 1971. The kit fox is currently classified as "threatened" in California (effective January 1, 1985).

Kit fox inhabit the low foothills surrounding the San Joaquin Valley, portions of the San Joaquin Valley floor, and the interior Coast Range valleys. The project areas are located in the extreme northern portion of the kit fox range (Hall, 1981; O'Farrell, 1983). San Joaquin kit fox in this region have received little study compared to the populations in the south.

Studies indicate that northern kit fox use California ground squirrels as their primary food source (Hall, 1983; Orloff, in press), while southern kit fox typically feed on kangaroo rats and desert cottontails (O'Farrell, 1983; Morrell, 1972). The northern foxes also use ground squirrel burrows for their dens. Kit fox are reputedly poor diggers (Jensen, 1972; Morrell, 1972). The high clay content of most soils in this region probably precludes kit fox from digging their own dens; however, they can enlarge dens previously built by other animals. Ground squirrel burrows appear to be the most commonly used dens. Manmade structures such as culverts can also serve as dens (Hall, 1983; O'Farrell, 1983).

Factors that limit the distribution of northern kit fox include the availability of den sites, the adequacy of the prey base, and competitive exclusion and predation by other canids, particularly coyotes (Snow, 1973; Morrell, 1975; Hall, 1983). Because kit fox rely so heavily on ground squirrels for both food and dens, maintenance of squirrel populations may be essential to the foxes' survival. Three other canid species occupy habitats in the Livermore vicinity—gray fox, red fox, and coyote. The dominance status among these species is usually based on size, resulting in a hierarchy in which kit fox are subordinate to these larger canids. Coyotes are a primary cause of kit fox mortality (O'Farrell, 1984; Orloff, Hall, and Speigel, 1986), but their presence does not preclude the existence of kit fox. It means that kit fox require abundant den sites for escape cover.

Summary

Kit fox could use the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore for foraging and denning, but no evidence of such use was recorded during the 1991 surveys. Although scent station and spotlighting results show both gray and red fox inhabiting the areas, these animals are likely to coexist with kit fox if resources such as food and den sites are not limited.

Although LLNL Site 300 is at the far northern end of their range, kit fox occasionally might use LLNL Site 300 for foraging and denning. The more gently sloping northern half of the site is well suited for kit fox, because of the abundance of California ground squirrels, their major source of dens and food in this part of their range. Most of the potential kit fox dens were found in the northern or central parts of the property. No kit fox tracks or scats were found at the entrances to these dens, but this is not unusual because of the sparse kit fox population in this region and the difficulty of identifying known dens. In 1986, 404 potential dens were found on LLNL Site 300 (Orloff, 1986). There was a 30 percent increase in potential dens in 1991 (527) compared to 1986. There were 0.08 potential kit fox dens per acre on LLNL Site 300 in 1991. This is a relatively high density when compared to an adjacent property surveyed in 1985 that had 0.03 potential kit fox dens per acre (BioSystems Analysis, Inc., 1985).

The lack of kit fox known dens, tracks, scats and sightings onsite during recent or past surveys (Rhoads et al., 1981; Orloff, 1986) strongly indicates but does not prove the nonoccurrence of kit fox on LLNL Site 300. Kit fox populations in the northernmost part of their range are extremely sparse (Orloff, Hall, and Speigel, 1986). Previous studies have demonstrated the difficulty in verifying kit fox occurrence in areas of low density (Hall, 1983; Orloff, Hall, and Speigel, 1986). More than 6 months of live-trapping and spotlighting surveys were conducted before kit fox were detected during a California Department of Fish and Game study for the Los Vaqueros Reservoir project, 10 miles north of LLNL Site 300 (California Department of Fish and Game, 1983).

Kit fox are known to occur within 2 miles of LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-15). Early distribution and abundance studies by Swick (1973) provide several accounts of kit fox occurrences near LLNL Site 300, one less than 0.5 mile to the northeast. Several kit fox occurrences have been recorded in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. In 1983, kit fox were observed at the proposed site for Carnegie New Town, 1 mile east of LLNL Site 300 (Bio-Tech, 1983). Dens with probable kit fox scat and prey remains were found less than 0.5 mile west of LLNL Site 300 on the Mulqueeny Ranch (BioSystems Analysis, Inc., 1985). Kit fox were detected 1.5 miles north of LLNL Site 300 consisting of one carcass and a kit fox observation during night spotlighting surveys in 1986 (Orloff, unpublished data).

Reports of kit fox occurrence in close proximity to LLNL Site 300, information on kit fox habitat use near LLNL Site 300, and the excellent prey base and denning potential at LLNL Site 300 suggest that kit fox could use the site occasionally. However, no evidence of such use was recorded during the 1991 survey or earlier surveys (Orloff, 1986; Rhoads et al., 1981).

Table F-14 Kit Fox Den Classification Criteria

Classification	Criteria
Known	Any dens of appropriate size and shape in suitable habitat that show an indication of past or present use by kit fox (fresh or weathered "signs," such as tracks, scats, or prey remains).
Pupping	Any known den used by kit foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups or dens that show signs of such activity (i.e., small scats, matted vegetation, numerous prey remains) and/or multiple hole dens.
Potential	Any den of appropriate size and shape in suitable habitat without any kit fox "signs" (tracks, scats, prey remains).

Source: Orloff, in press.

Table F-15 Species and Number of Individual Sightings During Night Spotlighting Surveys at the LLNL Livermore Site and SNL, Livermore in April and May 1991

Species	April 30	May 1	May 2	May 6	May 7	May 8	Total
Birds
Barn owl			1				1
Mammals
Kit fox							0
Red fox	6	5	4	3	6		24
Gray fox				2	1		3
Coyote		1					1
Unidentified canid	3	2	1		2	2	10
Feral house cat	3	2	6	6	14	6	37
Striped skunk			1				1
Desert cottontail	7	7	8	2	2	5	31
Black-tailed hare	4	2	2	6	5	5	24
Unidentified wildlife species	1	5	2	2	1	2	13
Total:	24	24	25	21	31	20	145

Table F-16 Species and Number of Individual Sightings During Night Spotlighting Surveys at LLNL Site 300 During May and June 1991

Species	May 10		May 13		May 14		May 15		May 16		May 17		May 29^a	May 30^a	June 5^a	Total
Species	Site 300	Off- site	Site 300	Off- site	Site 300	Off- site	Site 300	Off- site	Site 300	Off- site	Site 300	Off- site	Site 300	Site 300	Site 300	Site 300	Off- site
Birds
Killdeer			2													2	0
Barn owl		1		6		2				3		1				0	13
Great horned owl			1	1			1				2	2				4	3
Burrowing owl									1							1	0
Mammals
San Joaquin kit fox^b		1														0	1
Red fox												1				0	1
Coyote		1		1		2	4	4		3		4	3	1	1	9	15
Unid. canid^c						3										0	3
Feral house cat						1	1									1	1
Bobcat							1		1							2	0
American badger							1	2					1	6	1	9	2
Striped skunk					1											1	0
Raccoon					1											1	0
Kangaroo rat	1	9	3	3		8	3	8	3	3	2	5	5	5	10	32	36
Desert cottontail	3	11	1	1	4	6	7	6	1	1	5	6	2	4	5	32	31
Black-tailed hare	1	3			3	1	5			1				3	2	14	5
Black-tailed deer	3	2	1		3	1	5		2		6		2			22	3
Reptiles
Gopher snake					1		1									2	0
Amphibians
Western toad						2										0	2
Totals:	8	28	8	12	13	26	29	20	8	11	15	19	13	19	19	132	116

^a Partial survey of the northeast corner only.
^b Possible sighting.
^c No common name.

Table F-17 Species and Number of Individuals Recorded at Scent Stations at the LLNL Livermore Site and SNL, Livermore During April and May 1991

Species	April 30	May 3	May 6	May 7	May 8	May 9	Total
Red fox	1	1	1	1		3	7
Gray fox	2	3	5	4	6	6	26
Opossum				4	2	2	8
Striped skunk		1	1	2			4
Feral house cat	4	3	3	3	2	4	19
Raccoon		1					1
Raven		1		1	1	1	4
Total:	7	10	10	15	11	16	69

Table F-18 Species and Number of Individuals Recorded at Scent Stations at LLNL Site 300 During April and May 1991

Species	April 30	May 3	May 6	May 7	May 8	May 9	Total
Badger					1		1
Spotted skunk						2	2
Weasel					1		1
Feral house cat	2	3	2	3	2	2	14
California ground squirrel	1	1			4	1	7
Unidentified rodent	2	3	1	6			12
Unidentified lagomorph		1					1
Raven	6	16	25		3	13	63
Unidentified bird				1		1	2
Total:	11	24	28	10	11	19	103

F.2.4.3 Amphibians

The focus of the amphibian surveys was to assess the presence and distribution of two sensitive amphibian species: California tiger salamander and red-legged frog. Amphibian surveys were conducted in areas containing standing water. California Department of Fish and Game normally recommends conducting surveys for California tiger salamander twice in April, 2 weeks apart (Brode, 1991). Because of the drought and late winter rains in 1991, surveys were conducted on April 10 and May 8 at the LLNL Livermore site (Figure F-16) and SNL, Livermore (Figure F-17) and on April 16 to 18 and May 9, 1991, at LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-18).

All natural or constructed drainages, springs, pools, and ponds that contained standing water were carefully examined for the presence of sensitive amphibian species. When approaching a survey area, biologists watched and listened for adult frogs and salamanders. Vegetation and shallow areas around the edges of the water were then searched for amphibians and their egg masses attached to vegetation. In large pools, or ponds, a 1/8-inch-square mesh fish seine, measuring 4×6 ft, was used to capture larval and adult amphibians. Biologists walked for 10 to 20 ft through each pool, pulling the seine between them with the bottom of the seine against the pool bottom. Pools were seined an average of three times each unless dense vegetation or deep water interfered. Large pools, or pools with varied habitat types were seined up to six times. In small pools and/or pools with shallow water or dense vegetation cover, a 5×6-inch or 7×10-inch nylon aquarium dipnet was used for sampling. The number of dipnet samples taken varied with the size of the survey area, but each was covered entirely. All amphibian eggs, larvae, and adults captured (or observed) were identified to species and released. Observed species and their developmental stage were recorded for each survey area.

Offsite areas adjacent to LLNL Site 300 were also surveyed for amphibians. The offsite areas included a pond located near the California Department of Parks and Recreation ranger's residence and Corral Hollow Creek on the Carnegie State Recreational Vehicle Area (Figure F-18). The pond was seined one time and then dipnetted because of deep water and heavy growth of cattails on the perimeter. All other survey areas were dipnetted.

Results

Neither the California tiger salamanders nor the red-legged frog were observed at the LLNL Livermore site or SNL, Livermore. The only amphibian species found on either site was the pacific tree frog. No larval or adult California tiger salamanders were observed at LLNL Site 300; however, construction workers at the Carnegie State Recreational Vehicle Area, which is offsite, reported seeing a yellow-spotted salamander near Corral Hollow drainage (the intermittent creek in the park) in mid-March 1991. Their description of the salamander matches that of a California tiger salamander.

Red-legged frogs occurred at amphibian survey site 13 on LLNL Site 300 and offsite at amphibian survey sites 10 and 11 (Figure F-18). Survey site 13 is a permanent man-made sewage treatment pond. A red-legged frog larva was captured near a small stand of cattails in this pond. Survey site 10 consists of two shallow pools of temporary water (3 to 4 inches deep) in the Corral Hollow Creek. A roadway for off-road vehicles divides these pools. Red-legged frogs at this site were young larvae. Survey site 11 is a permanent pond near the California Department of Parks and Recreation ranger's residence. Seining resulted in the capture of many adult and larval red-legged frogs as well as tree frog and western toad larvae.

The California tiger salamander is a federal candidate 2 species and a state species of special concern. This species ranges from Sonoma County south to the Santa Rita Hills in Santa Barbara County and east to the foothills of the Sierras (Stebbins, 1966). These salamanders breed in quiet water or small ephemeral ponds and pools in low hills and valleys dominated by grassland or open oak woodland. Adults spend most of the year in burrows, sometimes as far as 1 mile from freshwater sources (Stebbins, 1985). They are known to shelter in the burrows of ground squirrels, gophers, and badgers, emerging for short periods after fall or winter rains when they migrate to ponds to breed. These nocturnal salamanders are difficult to find in the field, but larvae can be found at breeding sites in the spring.

The absence of tiger salamander larvae in 1991 surveys may be linked to the late winter rains in 1991 and to the continuing drought in California. In 1991 there was virtually no winter precipitation in northern California. Heavy rains in March may have occurred too late to trigger breeding behavior in salamanders. The onset of winter rains, typical of California's climate, initiates the migration of tiger salamander to breeding sites. Pools formed this late in the year may dry out before salamander larvae transform into a terrestrial form (roughly 20 weeks). The number of larval tiger salamanders in 1991 was lower than in previous years in California (Stebbins, 1990). At the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, pools containing standing water were extremely shallow and contained only pacific tree frogs. The breeding site on LLNL Site 300 identified in 1986 contained no water in 1991. The possible sighting of an adult tiger salamander near LLNL Site 300 in March 1991 indicates some individuals may have migrated to breeding sites during the March rains.

The red-legged frog is a federal candidate 2 species and a state species of special concern. It ranges from California's coastal counties to the northern Sierra foothills. Frequenting quiet pools and ponds surrounded by willows or emergent aquatic vegetation, these frogs are typically associated with permanent bodies of water; however, they can also occur in ephemeral pools if the water remains long enough for breeding and development (approximately 20 weeks). Individuals disperse from aquatic habitats after rains and may appear in damp sites far from water. The breeding season is from January to July and peaks in February (Stebbins, 1966).

As with tiger salamanders, the breeding season for this amphibian may have been delayed and depressed by the absence of winter rains and the continuing drought in northern California. Red-legged frogs were not present at survey sites at the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites. At LLNL Site 300, red-legged frogs were abundant only at the sewage lagoon. At survey site 13, only one larva was captured, which may reflect low numbers or may be related to the reduced sampling effort used in the sewage pond (i.e., dipnetting rather than seining). Amphibian survey site 10 appears to be too temporary and disturbed to support larvae until they metamorphose into frogs. There were no red-legged frogs at survey sites 2 or 3, but an interview with a security officer indicated that this species may have occurred at these sites in the past.

F.2.4.4 Alameda Whipsnake

Methods

Although the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore are within the range of the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), only LLNL Site 300 has suitable habitat as defined by the California Department of Fish and Game (Figure F-19). At the 1990 Alameda Whipsnake Meeting at California State University at Hayward, this habitat was defined as south or southwest-facing slopes with coastal scrublands broken by scattered grassy patches, rocky hillsides, gullies, canyons, or stream courses. None of the proposed projects at LLNL Site 300 are in this habitat; therefore, a trapping study was not conducted. Suitable habitat was delineated from a 1986 vegetation map of LLNL Site 300 (Taylor and Davilla, 1986a). In addition, all field personnel were instructed to look for this snake during other surveys.

Results

Two California whipsnakes (Masticophis lateralis lateralis), a subspecies closely related to the Alameda whipsnake, were observed during the 1991 biological surveys on LLNL Site 300. The California whipsnake is more common and widespread than the Alameda whipsnake and has no sensitivity status. LLNL Site 300 is in an area where these two whipsnake subspecies may intergrade (co-occur). The habitat requirements and the geographic distribution of these subspecies are poorly known. The two subspecies can be distinguished from each other by the number of scale rows comprising the lateral stripes, the coloration of the lateral stripes, and several other characteristics. The whipsnakes found had most characteristics of the California whipsnake (McGinnis, 1991).

Mapping of potential Alameda whipsnake habitat revealed very little suitable habitat for the whipsnake as defined by the California Department of Fish and Game (Figure F-19). The approximate 100 acres of coastal sage scrublands in the southwestern part of LLNL Site 300 provide suboptimal but suitable habitat for this whipsnake. A few acres of northern riparian woodland on the east side of LLNL Site 300 may also provide suitable habitat.

The Alameda whipsnake is a state-threatened subspecies and a federal candidate 2 subspecies. This snake occurs in the Coast Ranges of Alameda and Contra Costa counties in Diablan sage scrub. Alameda whipsnakes feed primarily on the western fence lizard and other small lizards (Stebbins, 1990; Greene, 1990). High densities of prey species may be necessary to support Alameda whipsnake populations. Others have speculated that riparian habitat or water sources closely associated with sage scrub may be another habitat requirement for the snake (Beeman, 1990). Recent radio-tracking studies of two whipsnakes in the Berkeley Hills have found that some Alameda whipsnakes spend significant amounts of time in open grassland (EIP Associates, 1990). An extensive trapping effort would be necessary to conclusively determine the presence of Alameda whipsnakes on LLNL Site 300.

The Alameda whipsnake was found at the edge of the sage scrub habitat in 1986. In 1991, one California whipsnake was found dead in a grassy canyon and the other was inhabiting a grassy canyon bottom. It is significant that the whipsnakes discovered during the 1991 field work were found in open grassland away from chaparral, because this is not thought to be a typical habitat. Whipsnake sightings during surveys on LLNL Site 300 and the results of the habitat analysis suggest that current California Department of Fish and Game definitions of suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat may not adequately describe habitat use by the whipsnake. The two California whipsnake sightings in 1991 and Alameda whipsnake sighting in 1986 (Orloff, 1986) provide evidence that whipsnakes are in the project area, although the habitat may be described as "suboptimal."

F.2.4.5 Fairy Shrimp

Methods

Temporary pools of stagnant water at the LLNL Livermore site (Figure F-16), LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-18), and SNL, Livermore (Figure F-17) could provide habitat suitable for four sensitive species of fairy shrimp: the California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), the longhorned fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), and the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi ). All areas containing standing water were sampled with a 6×5- or 7×10-inch aquarium dipnet.

Soil samples were also collected from depressions where vegetation or soil conditions indicated standing water may have recently been present, but which were dry during the survey. The soil samples were sent to Dr. Marie Simovich at the University of San Diego to determine if they contained fairy shrimp eggs.

Undeveloped land and areas around the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore site buildings were searched for suitable fairy shrimp habitat. Pools from natural and man-made water sources were surveyed by dipnetting on April 10, 1991. Soil samples were collected on April 10 and May 15, 1991.

LLNL Site 300 was surveyed for fairy shrimp from April 16 to 18, 1991. Undeveloped land, as well as areas around the laboratory buildings, was searched for suitable habitat for these species. Pools from natural and man-made water sources were surveyed and soil samples were collected on April 10 and May 15, 1991.

Results

Adult fairy shrimp were not found at the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites. Only two pools at the LLNL Livermore site were suitable for fairy shrimp (temporary with no flow). Both were small and in somewhat disturbed environments near dirt roads. Ten soil samples were taken from the LLNL Livermore site (Figure F-16). Most sample areas appeared to have had standing water previously, but its duration could not be determined. Because the depressions were small and contained no water on April 10, they were probably only rain puddles. No fairy shrimp eggs were found in the soil samples.

No pools of water suitable for fairy shrimp were observed at SNL, Livermore. Two soil samples were taken (Figure F-17) from an area identified as "vernal cismontane alkali marsh" in a previous study by Environmental Science Associates, Inc. (1990); however, it was not clear if a pool of water could occur in this area. No fairy shrimp eggs were found in the soil samples.

No adult fairy shrimp were found at LLNL Site 300. One pool considered potential habitat was discovered. Additional small stagnant pools of water were found near Building 801; as expected, they did not contain fairy shrimp because the ponds appeared to be permanent.

Soil samples were collected at 13 locations on LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-18). Five of these samples were taken from potential water-holding indentations in the top surfaces of rock outcroppings. Some of the rock outcrops at LLNL Site 300 were sandstone and the rest were a conglomerate. Many of the other soil samples at LLNL Site 300 came from areas that clearly hold water (as evidenced by cracked dried mud and/or previous reports of water occurrence). Some of these sites are probably exposed to flowing water. Three of the LLNL Site 300 sample areas were in dirt roads. No fairy shrimp eggs were found in any of the soil samples.

The temporary pool habitat required by many species of fairy shrimp is rapidly disappearing because of agriculture development, urbanization, and water channelization. As a result, several species of fairy shrimp, including the ones for which surveys were conducted, have been recommended for category 1 candidacy by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (they are currently listed as 1R). They have also been petitioned to be listed as threatened or endangered. When a species has been petitioned to be listed (by an expert outside of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), generally, a determination is made quickly. Therefore, the species of fairy shrimp could become federally listed as threatened or endangered relatively soon (Warenycia, 1991).

Most species of fairy shrimp occur in temporary, stagnant pools of water and survive the desiccation in the summer as eggs in the top layer of soil. Some eggs can survive for more than 1 year. Fairy shrimp develop into adults after pools fill with water. The length of time adults are found varies depending on the species. Habitat requirements for all fairy shrimp species are not known, but physical and chemical factors, such as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH, may be important (Eng et al., 1990; Pennak, 1989).

Ideally, pools should be surveyed for adult fairy shrimp early in the spring, otherwise fairy shrimp may disappear from a pool before the pool dries out (Simovich, 1991). Surveys should be done at intervals soon after the pools fill.

Most of the habitat at the three sites was not suitable for fairy shrimp. At the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, no areas clearly held water for an extended period of time other than the two small pools at LLNL Livermore site. Although fairy shrimp can occur in pools that are quite small, these two pools were not ideal habitat because they were in disturbed areas close to roads. One of the pools had been driven through by a motor vehicle; the other was very small and perhaps recently man-made. The flowing water in drainages surveyed for amphibians is not appropriate fairy shrimp habitat because flowing water washes the eggs away (Eng, 1990; Pennak, 1989).

LLNL Site 300 has areas that hold water, but many of these are subject to low-level flow and are therefore, not suitable habitat. The indentations in the rock outcroppings at LLNL Site 300 probably are not suitable fairy shrimp habitat either. Fairy shrimp have been found in depressions in sandstone at the Souza Ranch north of Livermore (Eng et al., 1990), but the rock indentations at LLNL Site 300 were much smaller. The most likely places to support fairy shrimp are two locations in the northwestern portion of LLNL Site 300. Both of these pool sites appeared to experience little or no flow and were in a fairly natural state; however, fairy shrimp did not occur in samples from these pools.

F.2.4.6 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Methods

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) occurs on elderberry plants; therefore, branches and trunks of elderberry were examined for the boreholes the beetle larvae create when emerging from their host plant. Leaves and flowers of the elderberries were searched for adult beetles.

Surveys for elderberry were conducted at the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites on April 10, 1991. They focused on Arroyo Seco and other drainages that might support these plants.

LLNL Site 300 was surveyed for elderberry from April 16 to 18, 1991, and during the surveys for sensitive species and wetlands. On May 15, 1991, an entomologist returned to the previously identified elderberry trees and visually inspected the host plants for adult beetles and beetle boreholes.

Results

No elderberry bushes were found at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. Elderberry bushes were found at five locations at LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-18), but no valley elderberry longhorn beetles were found. The best habitat for the beetle was found at elderberry location 1. This area contains over 100 elderberry bushes with numerous elderberry beetle exit holes. Although only a fraction of the trees were examined, nine holes that fit the appropriate criteria were observed.

Two bushes were found at elderberry location 2 and four were found at location 3. These sites are close to location 1. Location 4, near the middle of the study area, contained two bushes. None of the bushes at locations 2, 3, or 4 had exit holes.

Elderberry location 5, in the western portion of LLNL Site 300, contained approximately 30 bushes. A few of these bushes had holes, but the holes were not elderberry beetle holes because they were the wrong size or shape or in deadwood.

The federally listed valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or evidence of its presence, has been found only in Central Valley locations where the elderberry host plant is found. The beetle larvae develop and pupate inside of the elderberry host plant. The new adults leave the plant through exit holes that they created before pupation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984).

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle emergence holes are generally round or only slightly oval, whereas holes made by Buprestid beetles (another group of beetles using elderberry bushes) are more oblong or flattened. Other insects may also make holes in elderberry bushes or use preexisting holes, but they are more often found in deadwood, higher on the trunk, or on the branches. Clean-cut, pencil-width round holes on the lower trunk in live wood are generally assumed to be elderberry beetle holes (Bar, 1991). Only the elderberries in location 1 had holes characteristic of elderberry beetle exit holes.

There is a possibility that the exit holes found in bushes at LLNL Site 300 belong to the California elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and not the federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Because LLNL Site 300 is on the eastern edge of the California coastal range, it is near the border between the Central Valley range of the valley subspecies and the more coastal range of the California subspecies. The valley subspecies has been found on the eastern margin of the coastal mountains to the north of LLNL Site 300 near Lake Solano, but the California subspecies has been found on the eastern margin of the coastal mountains to the south of LLNL Site 300 near Los Banos (Bar, 1991). Unfortunately, adult beetles are rarely seen (Bar, 1991). No adult beetles were observed and it is not known which elderberry beetle subspecies is present at LLNL Site 300. Consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, all elderberry bushes within the range of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle should be treated as if they were host plants for the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

F.2.4.7 Pacific Western Big-Eared Bat and Greater Western Mastiff Bat

Methods

Surveys were conducted on May 16 and 29, 1991, at cliffs, caves, and selected buildings on LLNL Site 300 to assess the potential for the occurrence of pacific western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) and greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) (Figure F-18). Crevices and caves associated with cliffs were searched for signs of bats, including staining of rock faces from urine and bat droppings. Suitably located crevices were investigated with flashlights. In addition, the inside of buildings were searched at points of potential entry and under eaves or other areas that could provide roosting sites for bats. On May 16, a biologist was stationed with an infrared night-vision scope from 20:30 to 21:30 at each of three spots where bats would likely be observed (Figure F-18). Two of these sites were open-water sources. One site was an open pond located offsite near the California Department of Parks and Recreation ranger's residence. The biologist stationed at the second site, a sewage pond, was equipped with a "bat detector," an ultrasound detector capable of translating sound frequencies emitted by bats into the range audible to humans. The third site was an old mine shaft containing standing water. Each biologist watched for bats and recorded any activity. Bat species were identified by relative size, flight patterns and speed, and vocalizations. On May 29, biologists surveyed four more sites with the bat detector for approximately 10 minutes each between 21:30 and 23:30. Two survey sites were rocky areas south and east of Building 812; one site was at the waste disposal ponds at Building 817, and the other site was the mine shaft, which was visually surveyed on May 16 (Figure F-18). Bat species were identified by relative size, flight patterns and speed, and vocalizations.

Results

The Pacific western big-eared bats or greater western mastiff bats were not observed on LLNL Site 300. No suitable day-roosting habitat was found for either of these species. Some bat sign (droppings and cliff staining from urine) were observed at several cliff locations, but these appeared to be from bats of the genus Myotis. There was no sign of extensive bat use anywhere on LLNL Site 300.

Bats of the genus Myotis and Eptesicus were observed foraging and their vocalizations were detected at the sewage lagoon on LLNL Site 300. Minor vocalizations were detected with the bat detector (indicating only a few bats present) at the bat observation site just north of Linac Road (Figure F-18).

Informal interviews with LLNL Site 300 personnel yielded reports of bats foraging on insects drawn to lights at the East Observation Point, encounters with bats flying along breezeways adjacent to buildings, and comments of hearing bats late at night.

Offsite surveys of two mine shafts on property adjacent to LLNL Site 300 revealed the presence of Pacific western big-eared bats at both sites. One mine shaft contained five big-eared bats (at least one was a male) as well as Myotis sp. and Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis). Two Pacific western big-eared bats were in the second mine shaft. The second mine was also inhabited by a maternity colony of 35 female pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) and approximately 200 roosting Mexican free-tailed bats.

The Pacific western big-eared bat and the greater western mastiff bat are local subspecies of wider-ranging bats that occur throughout southern California and the southwestern United States (Barbour and Davis, 1969; Hall, 1981; Handley, 1959). The pallid bat's range extends from Mexico and Baja California through the southwestern United States and north into southern British Columbia (Hermanson and O'Shea, 1983). Although the pallid bat currently has no legal threatened or endangered status, biologists have noted a decline in the populations in recent years in California (Brown, 1991; Pierson, 1991) and its status is being examined by the California Department of Fish and Game.

All three of these bats inhabit a variety of habitats such as coastal forest, oak woodland, chaparral, and arid or semiarid desert habitats. They feed at night on insects and roost during the day in natural caves or cave analogs such as mine tunnels, rock shelters, and attics and crevices in buildings. The size and shape of the daytime roost may vary according to the sex and species of the bat and the time of year. In spring and summer, these bats form maternity colonies of adult females and their young. The concentration of a large fraction of a local population at one roost site makes maternity colonies particularly vulnerable to disturbance or destruction. The lack of roost sites may limit bat populations (McCraken, 1988).

There was no evidence of the pacific western big-eared or greater western mastiff bats roosting in natural or man-made features of LLNL Site 300. In the exposed rock on LLNL Site 300, relatively few crevices or cavities offer safe daytime refuges for bats. Observations of three gopher snakes friction-climbing on cliffs of rock conglomerate suggest that snake predation on bats may be a threat to bat roosts. The rock outcrops on LLNL Site 300 appear unsuitable for the great western mastiff bat, although future occupations of roosts in buildings on the site are possible. Potential man-made bat roosts were also lacking on LLNL Site 300. The reinforced concrete buildings generally lacked crevices suitable for bats. The mine shaft in the southwestern corner is an unlikely roost site because the low roof could be reached by predators. No bats were found in the mine shaft.

There is limited evidence of bat activity on LLNL Site 300 from the brief localized observations and reports of audible bat calls by LLNL Site 300 personnel; however, the existence of known bat colonies on adjacent properties makes it likely that sensitive bat species forage at least seasonally on LLNL Site 300. The presence of pacific western big-eared bats on adjacent property makes it highly likely that a maternal colony is present in the vicinity. Reports of audible bat calls on LLNL Site 300 and offsite pallid bat maternal colonies (one discovered during field surveys and one reported at Castle Rock (Rainey, 1991) make it highly likely that this species forages over the site.

F.2.4.8 Other Sensitive Species

Invertebrates—Methods

Surveys were conducted to assess potential habitat for the molestan blister beetle (Lytta molesta), the callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe), Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle (Hydrochara rickseckeri ), and the curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes) at LLNL Site 300. Biological surveys conducted in 1991 revealed the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites did not contain suitable habitat for the callippe silverspot butterfly, the molestan blister beetle, Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle, or the curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle. Areas searched were limited to those that may be impacted by approved and proposed projects. Special habitat elements were looked for such as: Anthophora bee nests that might be hosts for the molestan blister beetle; Johnny jump-up flowers (Viola pedunculata), the larval foodplant of the callippe silverspot butterfly; and pools of water that might support aquatic species like Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle and curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle.

Invertebrates—Results

The molestan blister beetle, callippe silverspot butterfly, Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle, and curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle were not found during surveys at LLNL Site 300. In addition, no suitable habitat was found for these species.

The natural history of the molestan blister beetle is largely unknown. It is one of about 15 species in the blister beetle genus Lytta that occur in the Central Valley of California and has been collected at about 30 sites, primarily in the San Joaquin Valley. Adult beetles feed on the petals and pollen of various food plants that typically grow in valley grassland and vernal pool habitats. These same plants are also visited by Anthophora bees, which serve as hosts for developing larvae of blister beetles.

The habitat of the proposed project sites appears to be unsuitable for the molestan blister beetle. No blister beetles or beetle pollinated plants were observed during the survey. Anthophora bees, a necessary larval host in the molestan blister beetle life cycle, were not found in the areas surveyed. The habitat in the proposed project areas was unsuitable for ground-nesting bees and no likely bee flowers were observed on LLNL Site 300.

The callippe silverspot butterfly is endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area and is a subspecies of a silverspot butterfly, which ranges from the Rocky Mountains to the West Coast. It occurs in grasslands where its larval food plant, Johnny jump-up, grows. Only a few populations are known. A population that is an intermediate between two subspecies S.c. callippe and S.c. comstocki occurs southeast of Livermore along Mines Road (Arnold, 1985).

LLNL Site 300 does not provide suitable habitat for the callippe silverspot butterfly because the butterfly's food plant is not found there. No Johnny jump-up flowers were found during botanical surveys. Although the field survey occurred at the peak of its adult flight season, none was observed on the property. Because populations of these butterflies are characterized by a large number of individuals, they are quite conspicuous when present. This butterfly is not expected to occur on LLNL Site 300.

The curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle and Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle are both aquatic beetles. The hygrotus diving beetle has been collected only from eastern Contra Costa County where it inhabits mineralized pools or other small bodies of water. The water scavenger beetle is known only from the immediate San Francisco Bay Area, where it occurs in calm, shallow bodies of fresh water.

The curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle is not expected to occur at LLNL Site 300 due to the absence of alkali vernal pools or wetlands, the preferred habitat of this beetle. LLNL Site 300 did not contain any suitable aquatic habitat for the Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle. Shallow, surface runoff rather than ponded water characterized most survey sites. Aquatic invertebrate survey site 13 was not considered suitable habitat because it is man-made and used for sewage treatment. Survey site 11, a pond adjacent to LLNL Site 300, is the only potentially suitable habitat for Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle discovered near LLNL Site 300. No specimens of Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle were found.

Raptors

Burrowing Owl—Methods

Surveys for burrowing owl were conducted from April 15 to May 10, 1991, in conjunction with kit fox den surveys. As described in the kit fox methods section, systematic variable-width transects were conducted throughout the study areas. Burrows were examined for owl signs such as fecal droppings (whitewash), owl pellets, and feathers. Burrowing owl nest and shelter inside the burrows of other animals and may use burrows concurrently with other residents. California ground squirrel colonies were closely searched for owl signs since burrowing owl often inhabit squirrel holes and are associated with such colonies. The locations of burrows showing large amounts of whitewash and/or pellets were recorded. All owl sightings were recorded.

Burrowing Owl—Results

Burrowing owl or their burrows were not observed at the LLNL Livermore or SNL, Livermore sites. Eight burrowing owl dens were observed at LLNL Site 300 during kit fox den surveys (Figure F-20).

All of these dens were small burrows marked by whitewash and burrowing owl pellets; one burrowing owl was observed during night spotlighting on May 16, 1991.

The burrowing owl, a state species of special concern, is a diurnal owl inhabiting open grasslands in the Central Valley. They are closely associated with California ground squirrel colonies, whose burrows provide roosting and nesting sites for the owls. Burrowing owl prey upon insects, small birds, and small rodents (Karalus and Eckert, 1974). They tolerate humans and may be found near roadways and buildings, as well as in more remote areas.

The burrowing owl population observed in 1991 at LLNL Site 300 is greatly reduced from previous years. Surveys on LLNL Site 300 in 1986 (Orloff, 1986) found the burrowing owl to be relatively common, especially in the more evenly sloping areas to the north where there was an abundance of ground squirrel colonies. During the 1986 surveys, many owl burrows were found during ground surveys and 40 owls were observed during night spotlighting. The 5-year drought in northern California may have reduced ground squirrel populations which, in turn, would affect owl distribution and breeding success.

Other Nesting Raptors—Methods

Surveys for nesting raptors such as red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni ), golden eagle, northern harrier, prairie falcon, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), black-shouldered kite (Elanus caeruleus), barn owl, great horned owl, and short-eared owl were conducted in conjunction with kit fox den surveys. Information from incidental wildlife observations made during other biological surveys was incorporated into raptor survey data. Biologists visually searched trees, cliffs, and man-made structures such as telephone poles, buildings, and power poles for raptor nests. Areas with avian signs such as whitewash from raptor fecal droppings, raptor feathers, owl pellets, and prey remains were examined for evidence of nesting. Adult raptors were observed for territorial or nesting behavior. Suitable habitat for ground-nesting raptors, such as the northern harrier or short-eared owl, were surveyed for nests.

Other Nesting Raptors—Results

No raptor nests were observed at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. Only a few potential raptor nest sites occur at the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites and they may be too disturbed by human activities to be frequented by nesting raptors. The abundance of cliff and tree nest sites, foraging areas, and the relatively undisturbed nature of LLNL Site 300 make it an excellent area for a variety of nesting raptors.

Nine active raptor nests were recorded on LLNL Site 300 during ground surveys (Figure F-20). Red-tailed hawks occupied three nests, great horned owls occupied four nests, and the raptors occupying the remaining two nests were not identified. The nests were either on rocky cliffs or in blue oak trees; one red-tailed hawk nest was on top of a utility pole.

Raptor species observed at LLNL Site 300 that did not appear to be nesting include: prairie falcon, golden eagle, black-shouldered kite, northern harrier, American kestrel, and barn owl. LLNL Site 300 provides important foraging grounds for raptors that nest on adjacent properties.

Tricolored Blackbird—Methods

Areas that contained suitable habitat for tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), such as wetlands supporting cattail or standing water, were surveyed. Biologists listened for blackbird song and examined more common red-winged blackbird to ensure that they were not the closely related tricolored blackbird.

Tricolored Blackbird—Results

The tricolored blackbird was not observed at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, or SNL, Livermore.

The tricolored blackbird is a federal candidate 2 species that inhabits wetlands west of the Sierras. Optimal nesting habitat for this California endemic blackbird consists of freshwater wetlands where dense cattails surround open water. This blackbird is highly gregarious and nests synchronously in large colonies (Orians, 1961). Foraging occurs in agricultural areas and moist, short-grass habitats with an abundance of seeds and insects. There is no suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird at the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites. Limited amounts of this habitat occur on LLNL Site 300. In 1986, small colonies of blackbirds nested in small groves of cattails along two drainages in the southeastern portion of the site (Orloff, 1986). The best habitat for tricolored blackbird is the pond located near the California Department of Parks and Recreation ranger's residences adjacent to LLNL Site 300. The 1991 surveys at this pond and other areas at LLNL Site 300 revealed only red-winged blackbirds.

San Joaquin Pocket Mouse—Methods

The San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus) was observed at LLNL Site 300 in 1986 (Orloff, 1986). Any occurrences of this species observed in conjunction with kit fox den surveys were recorded.

San Joaquin Pocket Mouse—Results

The San Joaquin pocket mouse, a federal candidate 2 species, inhabits grassland with fine textured soils and scattered shrubs. Its approximate range includes the Sacramento Valley from Tehama County southward, and the San Joaquin Valley to Rose Station. At the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, mowing and plowing fields to control grass growth and reduce fire hazard creates habitat unsuitable for pocket mice. At LLNL Site 300, however, pocket mice could occur throughout the area, except perhaps at the more rocky sites. A dead pocket mouse was found on LLNL Site 300 in 1986 (Orloff, 1986) and another specimen was collected nearby that same year (Patton, 1986).

A dead San Joaquin pocket mouse was also found on April 17, 1991, during a kit fox den survey. The pocket mouse was in open annual grassland in the northwestern corner of LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-20).

Riparian Woodrat—Methods

Riparian areas supporting suitable habitat for the riparian woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes riparia) were surveyed. Canyons and drainages with trees or shrubs were examined for woodrat trails and houses. Woodrat houses are stick piles, 2 to 4 ft in diameter and almost as high, built on the ground or in trees (especially live oak trees).

Riparian Woodrat—Results

No riparian woodrat houses or evidence of such woodrats were found at the study sites. Desert woodrats (Neotoma lepida) appear to be common in the rocky areas of LLNL Site 300.

The riparian woodrat is a federal candidate 2 species and a state species of special concern in the San Joaquin Valley. It inhabits moderately well-developed and well-developed riparian woodland with trees such as cottonwood and sycamore. There is one historical record for the Corral Hollow drainage (California Department of Fish and Game, 1983), and one woodrat was trapped on LLNL Site 300 in 1980 (Rhoads et al., 1981). The riparian woodland in the southwest corner of LLNL Site 300 and along Arroyo Seco at SNL, Livermore may be a suitable, though suboptimal, habitat for this species, because the riparian vegetation is not well developed (Williams, 1986).

American Badger—Methods

Sightings and active dens of badgers discovered during kit fox den surveys were recorded. Active badger dens were identified by their distinctive elliptical shape, fresh diggings, backfilling of dens, tracks, and scat. Additional information on badgers was collected from tracks left at scent stations and from night spotlighting observations.

American Badger—Results

No badgers or badger dens were found at the LLNL Livermore or SNL, Livermore sites. Eight active badger dens were observed at LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-20). Nine badgers were observed on LLNL Site 300 and two badgers were observed offsite while conducting night spotlighting surveys.

The American badger is a state species of special concern that occurs throughout most of California, the western and central states of the United States, and the provinces of Canada. Badger populations in California have declined greatly within the last century, particularly in coastal areas and in southern California. Badgers occur in a wide variety of open uncultivated habitats, with dry friable soils and sufficient prey. These highly specialized fossorial mammals prey primarily on burrowing rodents such as gophers, ground squirrels, and kangaroo rats.

LLNL Site 300, in particular, offers suitable foraging and denning habitat for badgers. Badgers are less likely to inhabit the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites due to high levels of human activity and cultivation of grassland areas. In addition to the eight active badger dens identified at LLNL Site 300, signs of badger diggings were widespread and common. The abundance of small rodents provides an excellent prey base for this species.

California Horned Lizard—Methods

The California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale) was observed during kit fox and other biological surveys. Special attention was given to roadways, berms, and sandy washes and drainages with low shrubs and tumbleweed for cover, habitats these lizards prefer.

California Horned Lizard—Results

No California horned lizards were found at the LLNL Livermore or SNL, Livermore sites. Three California horned lizards were observed during biological surveys at LLNL Site 300 (Figure F-20).

The California horned lizard, a state species of special concern, occurs throughout much of California west of the deserts. It frequents a variety of habitats including scrubland, grassland, riparian, woodlands, and open coniferous forests, where soils are friable for digging. The lizard may be locally common along sandy washes with low shrub cover. The grassland habitat found at all three sites, and especially at LLNL Site 300, provides good habitat conditions for this species. Although only three of them were observed during field-work, the potential for their occurrence is good in all undeveloped and relatively undisturbed areas.

F.2.5 Impacts

Impacts discussed below include the effects of the no action alternative and the proposed actions. The 9500-ft-long water supply pipeline from LLNL Site 300 to the Hetch Hetchy water supply, and the 8000-ft-long water supply pipeline from SNL, Livermore to the Mocho pump station are funded baseline projects under the no action alternative. Those pipelines not within the boundaries of the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, or SNL, Livermore were not surveyed, and their impacts to sensitive species were not assessed; however, the environmental impacts associated with these pipelines were addressed in two action description memorandums (LLNL, 1990a, 1990b). The proposed action and the no action alternative would not affect any federal or state threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species given the mitigation measures specified in section F.2.6.

F.2.5.1 Rare Plants

The large-flowered fiddleneck was the only endangered plant species observed. The two populations of this species are protected at LLNL Site 300, and since no other rare plants were observed, construction and operational activities at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, or SNL, Livermore would not affect any other rare plant species.

Construction Impacts

Construction impacts include the direct loss of vegetation by construction of facilities such as testing sites, firing tables, disposal and wastewater facilities, maintenance buildings, security facilities, fences, and roads. These impacts are not considered significant because there would be minimal loss of vegetation and because no rare plants were discovered during surveys of the project areas.

Operational Impacts

Operational impacts at LLNL Site 300 include controlled burning, exclusion of grazing and other agricultural processes, and vegetation control such as disking, maintenance of fire roads, and limited applications of pesticides. The LLNL Site 300 controlled burning program appears to have had a positive impact on the reestablishment and maintenance of perennial native grassland habitat on the site. Stands of native grassland onsite are strongly correlated with the areas burned over the past 30 years. Such grassland habitat had been eliminated offsite by farming and ranching practices in the region. A comprehensive inventory of native grasslands has not been conducted for California. Notably, Barry (1972) did not mention the presence of native grasslands in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300, but using Barry's evaluation criteria, the site could be judged one of the largest native grassland habitats known in California.

No livestock grazing (sheep, cattle, horses) has been permitted at LLNL Site 300 since 1953. Baseline comparisons of the flora on the site and the flora of neighboring, grazed parcels shows a greater complement of native grasses and herbs on LLNL Site 300. Also, LLNL Site 300 slopes and substrates show less instability and erosion. This is probably the result of a more stable plant cover and the retention of soil-binding native plant species.

Dry land agriculture is practiced on SNL, Livermore, resulting in removal of all native vegetation from the 40 acres farmed. Agricultural use may have destroyed habitat for some rare plant species, but because it has been practiced for at least 15 years, it is not considered a significant effect as assessed in this document.

Disking, grading fire roads, and applying herbicides to contain fires have been in effect at LLNL Site 300 for a few years. These practices favor the establishment and maintenance of introduced, ruderal vegetation. As long as these practices are limited to existing roads and facilities, the impacts are insignificant.

F.2.5.2 Wildlife

Potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore include direct mortality or injury to individuals; removal and modification of native habitat resulting from grading and widening roads, and the construction of new facilities; reduction in the prey base and number of denning sites; potential disturbance to wildlife from human presence and vehicle traffic in the vicinity; and potential degradation of localized water quality or flow regimes from runoff, erosion, or pollutants.

An analysis of potential construction and operational impacts on sensitive species follows. In addition, impact matrices (Table F-19, Table F-20, and Table F-21) display the potential effect of each activity on sensitive wildlife that occur or have the potential to occur at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore. The LLNL Livermore site is extensively developed and provides minimal habitat for sensitive wildlife. SNL, Livermore is also developed, but contains open areas in the security zone that provide wildlife habitat because of minimal disturbance from humans. In general, LLNL Site 300 operations and management have protected and preserved a large parcel of native habitat that undoubtedly would have been subject to extensive grazing or recreational development. As a result, the wildlife abundance and diversity on LLNL Site 300 are probably greater than on adjacent grasslands.

Construction Impacts

The species most affected by direct mortality and habitat disturbance or losses from construction activities are relatively sedentary or burrowing species such as invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and small-to-medium sized mammals. Sensitive species that may be affected include the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, California horned lizard, and San Joaquin pocket mouse. This may also include the San Joaquin kit fox although it was not observed onsite. Impacts could be compounded for species whose reproductive periods coincide with construction, because natal dens or nesting areas are typically vulnerable to disturbance. This potential impact would be highest in the spring and early summer periods.

Based on survey results, impacts from construction for no action or the proposed action would be minimal for most common and sensitive wildlife species. Habitat loss is minimal. Species diversity is not expected to be greatly affected because similar habitat is available in adjacent areas. Because of the highly mobile nature of the endangered kit fox, and the possibility of it occurring at LLNL Site 300, DOE, and UC propose to minimize the potential for inadvertent injury or mortality to the kit fox by a series of mitigations described in section F.2.6. The San Joaquin kit fox would not be adversely affected by the proposed action or the no-action alternative. These mitigation measures would also help to avoid impacts that might otherwise adversely affect other sensitive species.

Operational Impacts

Impacts on wildlife could potentially occur from the following existing land-use practices, facilities, or laboratory operations including the annual controlled burning; absence of livestock grazing; dry land agriculture; ground squirrel poisoning; grading and disking of fire roads; vehicle traffic and human presence; fencing of facilities; explosives testing; wastewater surface impoundment area, sewage ponds, and ground water contamination.

Controlled Burning

LLNL Site 300 is the only one of the three study areas that practices controlled burning. The overall effect of controlled burning is probably positive for most species because fire is a natural process that can stimulate new vegetative growth, increase the prey base, and diversify habitat. Negative impacts associated with controlled burning may be incurred due to seasonal timing. The springtime controlled burns at LLNL Site 300 may injure or kill the young of ground-nesting species such as the short-eared owl or northern harrier; however, these two species did not nest onsite in 1991.

Large portions of LLNL Site 300 (approximately 2000 acres) are burned annually in the late spring to early summer. Animals living underground such as the burrowing owl, California tiger salamander, American badger, and San Joaquin pocket mouse are unlikely to be directly affected by fast-moving grass fires. The herbaceous forage may be diminished immediately after the fire. Burning should not threaten the prey base of any predators since rodents inhabiting this region are adapted to periodic grass fires. In fact, the overall effect of controlled burns on the American badger and the kit fox, if it were to occur onsite, is probably positive. Burns stimulate new vegetative growth and create grassland conditions that probably support greater numbers of kit fox and badger prey species (Balestreri, 1981).

Newly burned habitat provides excellent foraging for open-country raptors. Areas potentially supporting the Alameda whipsnake and tricolored blackbird are in unaffected habitat south of the controlled burn area. Aquatic habitat supporting sensitive amphibians should not be significantly affected by burning.

Lack of Livestock Grazing

Lack of livestock grazing is beneficial to most wildlife species because vegetation that provides cover and food for wildlife is not removed and habitat remains in a more natural state.

LLNL Site 300 has not been grazed for almost 40 years, but is surrounded on three sides by heavily grazed lands. The long-term relationship between kit foxes and grazing is not well understood. Several authors have suggested that grazing may increase habitat suitability for certain kit fox prey species (Balestreri, 1981; Laughrin, 1970; Jensen, 1972; Orloff, in press). California ground squirrels (the primary source of both food and dens for kit fox in their northern range) are especially well adapted to soil and vegetative conditions brought about by moderate to heavy grazing.

In contrast, other studies have indicated that such heavy grazing may lower densities of some important prey species (O'Farrell and McCue, 1981; O'Farrell et al., 1981). O'Farrell (1983) speculates that traditional prey species such as kangaroo rats and pocket mice feed primarily on seeds and other above-ground vegetation and, consequently compete with livestock for food. Therefore, excessive grazing can shift the composition of small mammal communities, decreasing primarily granivorous species and increasing such species as the California ground squirrel, which can exist on a greater variety of food items. Indeed, the elimination of grazing on LLNL Site 300 appear to have resulted in an abundance of several granivorous rodents that no longer need to compete with livestock for food. Despite the lack of grazing, ground squirrel populations have remained plentiful in the flatter areas of the site. If potential dens can be used as a gauge of ground squirrel density, ground squirrel populations may have even increased since the area was last surveyed for the kit fox (Orloff, 1986). Increases in the rodent population also benefit badgers.

Many rodents, including the San Joaquin pocket mouse, also may have benefitted from the development of large patches of native perennial grasslands caused by the exclusion of cattle combined with the annual controlled burning on LLNL Site 300. Many herbivorous animals prefer perennial grasses to the less nutritious non-native annual grasses (Sampson et al., 1951).

The exclusion of livestock grazing may have a mixed effect on the raptor population. Ground-nesting raptors (e.g., short-eared owl and northern harrier) probably benefit from the resultant tall grass. Foraging suitability for other open-country raptors, such as golden eagles, is enhanced by the presence of low-cover perennial grasslands. In other areas, foraging suitability is reduced where tall annual vegetation obscures ground visibility. Overall, raptor habitat is diminished by the lack of grazing.

Since livestock can destroy the vegetation cover and reduce the water quality of otherwise suitable ponds and wetlands, their exclusion has also benefitted the California tiger salamander and the red-legged frog and other species that use these important areas.

Dry Land Agriculture

Dry land agriculture affects wildlife by decreasing species diversity and natural wildlife habitat. SNL, Livermore is the only study area that practices dry land agriculture. Hay is harvested from approximately 40 acres of land on the west and east sides of the laboratories in early May and then reseeded in September. The land is disked after harvest and again before replanting. This activity has occurred for at least 15 years; however, because no sensitive species are known to occur there, these activities would not impact such species. Dry land agricultural practices do not occur at the LLNL Livermore site or LLNL Site 300.

Ground Squirrel Poisoning

Ground squirrel poisoning is generally detrimental to other wildlife species. This poisoning is limited on the study sites, however, and at its current level is not considered a significant impact to wildlife. LLNL Site 300 uses poisoned bait only around the high explosive wastewater surface impoundments, and SNL, Livermore no longer practices ground squirrel poisoning. The LLNL Livermore site uses poisoned bait to control ground squirrel populations around buildings.

Ground squirrel poisoning was conducted annually on LLNL Site 300 on an as-needed basis for more than a decade, using fumarin poison (grain treated with 0.025 percent fumarin). In the mid-1980s, fumarin was replaced by sulfur cartridges placed directly into active ground squirrel burrows. Currently, there is no active control program, except for the surface impoundment area where a poisoning regime using either Sevin or Diphazinone has been established and will be maintained annually.

The effects of rodent control practices on kit fox are debatable; however, the northern kit fox dependence on ground squirrels for both food and dens suggests that long-term poisoning could be detrimental. Poisons such as fumarin, an anticoagulant, not only can reduce populations of their primary prey but, more importantly, they can also poison predators (e.g., kit fox) that consumes enough of the poisoned ground squirrels (Schitoskey, 1975; Wallace, 1976; Hegdal et al., 1986). Since California ground squirrel burrows can easily be confused with kit fox dens, the use of sulfur cartridges may inadvertently kill kit fox if they were to use ground squirrel burrows at LLNL Site 300.

Poisoned bait can also kill other species that feed on it. The San Joaquin pocket mouse is probably affected much more severely by rodenticides than are the target species. Secondary poisoning may occur in predators such as the American badger that may feed on poisoned rodents. Raptors could also be adversely affected by the reduction of the prey base. These impacts may be slightly adverse for the predatory California tiger salamander as well. Since burrowing owls rely on ground squirrel colonies for den sites, they are also vulnerable to sulfur cartridges but would be only slightly affected since the ground squirrel populations would be only slightly affected.

As long as the use of poisons is confined to the high explosive wastewater impoundments, impacts are expected to be insignificant. The high explosive impoundment area is in the southern portion of LLNL Site 300 in a built-up area with a relatively high level of human activity. In addition, the impoundments are fenced, which excludes medium to large mammals that may occur in the area.

Disking and Construction and Maintenance of Fire Roads

Disking and grading fire roads may adversely affect some wildlife species, but by following recommended mitigations (section F.2.6), impacts can be minimized.

The LLNL Livermore site mows the northern perimeter and blades firebreaks. The herbicides "Roundup" and "Prince-up 90" are used along fencelines. SNL, Livermore mechanically manages weeds around buildings and has not used herbicides for 3 years.

The 150-ft-wide perimeter firebreaks on the northeastern boundaries of LLNL Site 300 have been disked since 1980. For several years beforehand, the same areas were sprayed annually with herbicides. Herbicides also have been applied along paved roads and around some facilities. Approximately 85 miles of fire roads are graded every spring along existing routes.

If kit fox did inhabit LLNL Site 300, it and other sensitive species such as the badger, burrowing owl, and San Joaquin pocket mouse could be killed or injured by disking and grading if they occupy dens within the area disturbed. Studies have shown that the top of kit fox den tunnels can be less than 10 inches from the ground surface (Morrell, 1972), and that suffocation in dens caved by plowing, grading, or otherwise clearing (i.e., disking) the land is a significant source of kit fox mortality (Morrell, 1975; Knapp, 1978).

If the same areas are graded or disked every year, current impacts are probably minimal. Animals can, however, establish residence in these disturbed areas and be subject to impact by the next grading event. Grading of roads may have more serious effects along the northwestern boundary, the most likely area of kit fox use of LLNL Site 300. In addition, grading usually takes place in the late spring, which is the reproductive season for most wildlife species.

The open space created by dirt roads within the grassland increases the visibility of prey species and hence the suitability of the habitat for many land and air predators. Herbicide applications are currently so minor that only very slight impacts would be expected on herbivorous rodents with small home ranges such as the San Joaquin pocket mouse.

Vehicle Traffic

Vehicle traffic can cause direct mortality to or impede daily or dispersal movement of wildlife (Luckenbach, 1975, 1978; Weinstein, 1978). Vehicles traveling along the paved roads and the better fire trails could strike sensitive wildlife. For example, motor vehicles are a major cause of kit fox mortality in many portions of their range. However, kit fox are absent or scarce at LLNL Site 300 and the impacts of motor vehicles should be essentially nonexistent on this species.

In their seasonal migrations, both California tiger salamanders and red-legged frogs can be found crawling on roads at night. Though they are vulnerable to being run over on the many roads on LLNL Site 300, impacts should be minimal as nighttime vehicle traffic is very limited and migrations are infrequent.

Explosives Testing

The primary explosives testing facilities at LLNL Site 300 are approximately 1 mile from the site's northern border. Explosives are tested almost entirely by day. Explosives testing likely has the greatest effect on birds. For example, diurnal raptors that forage directly over the facilities would be vulnerable to flying debris or shock overpressure. These raptors include golden eagle, prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, and red-tailed hawk (Orloff, 1986). It is believed that the impact of flying debris on raptors is minimal. One stunned golden eagle was found near bunker 801 in 1985; this bird might have been injured by an explosive test at this bunker, although this has not been verified. Although burrowing owls are also primarily diurnal, they typically stay close to the ground and should be minimally affected; however, those that occasionally perch on fences could be affected. Several burrowing owl dens were found near the testing facilities during 1986 surveys (Orloff, 1986), which indirectly indicates these birds are compatible with the conduct of current site operations.

Nocturnal species such as short-eared owls, American badger, and San Joaquin pocket mice should not be adversely affected by daytime testing. The best habitats for the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and the Alameda whipsnake lie beyond the impact zones.

If the kit fox were to occur onsite, it is expected that the infrequent explosions would not impact this species. The kit fox is fairly tolerant of those human activities that do not severely diminish the number of denning sites. O'Farrell (1983) and Balestreri (1981) found that kit fox denned near areas of high human activity. The kit fox is generally nocturnal so direct impacts from flying debris would be unlikely.

Sewage Treatment Pond and Surface Impoundments

LLNL is developing a 4-acre water retention basin in the center of the LLNL Livermore site that could eventually provide suitable habitat for waterfowl, tricolored blackbirds, sensitive amphibians, and sensitive aquatic invertebrates if standing water develops. This would be a beneficial impact for these species. Riparian habitat may be created by the increased surface runoff from the retention basin overflow that will be released into the Arroyo Las Positas, and would be another positive impact.

Visual inspection of the surface impoundments at LLNL Site 300 revealed few life forms within the waters. Shorebirds, however, have been seen foraging along the edge. LLNL Site 300 personnel have reported seeing dead birds in the water. These deaths cannot be conclusively linked to the impoundments, which have passed a water quality control test for fish species (California Assessment Manual-Bioassay-Title 22 screening). During the dry months, tap water is used to maintain water levels. The only sensitive species that might use these impoundments are the California tiger salamander, red-legged frog, Pacific western big-eared bat, and greater western mastiff bat. The impoundments are considered suboptimal habitats for the amphibians because they lack submergent and emergent vegetation. These amphibians' use of the impoundments probably would be strictly transitory and the impacts minimal. Although the bats could potentially forage over the impoundments, none was found in surveys conducted for this EIS/EIR. Combined with the fact that there are other water sources available, impacts to bats are not considered significant. The size, depth, and/or water quality of the impoundments and sewage pond make these waters unsuitable habitat for aquatic invertebrates such as fairy shrimp and Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle. The impenetrable fenced perimeter should screen out larger mammals such as kit fox.

The highly eutrophic sewage pond supports many aquatic species, including a nesting pair of mallards and red-legged frogs. Wildlife diversity should increase with further development of cattails. The pond may also provide suitable resting habitat for waterfowl. This pond is considered beneficial to wildlife.

Ground Water Contamination

Analysis of ground water at LLNL Site 300 indicates that there is ground water contamination below Buildings 833, 834, 850, landfill Pit 6, the high explosives process area, and general services area (Bryn, Landgraf and Booth, 1990; Crow and Lamarre, 1990; Ferry, Lamarre, and Landgraf, 1990; Taffet et al., 1991; Taffet and Oberdorfer, 1991; Webster-Scholten et al., 1991). These studies indicate that the contamination is restricted to the ground water and has not come to the surface at any of the spring-fed wetlands onsite.

A plume from the General Service Area has contaminated the alluvial/shallow bedrock aquifer under a segment of Corral Hollow Creek offsite (Ferry, Lamarre, and Landgraf, 1990). There is no indication that springs along Corral Hollow Creek have been contaminated by this plume.

The proposed remedial action alternative for the central and eastern General Services Areas is to extract and treat the contaminated ground water and then discharge the treated ground water into Corral Hollow Creek. In the vicinity of the General Services Area, the creek is bordered by wooded riparian vegetation with cottonwood the dominant canopy tree species. Mulefat and willow occur in the understory. One spring dominated by rush (Juncus sp.) occurs approximately 700 ft downstream from eastern General Services Area (Ferry, Lamarre, and Landgraf, 1990). The wooded riparian vegetation is well developed in some areas and sparse in others.

The discharge of treated ground water from various ground water remediation projects at LLNL Site 300 is expected to result in five different release points into Corral Hollow Creek. These release points are well over 200 ft apart and the potential exists for perennial flow for at least a short distance downstream from each discharge point. For example, the predicted length of flowing water from the General Services Area discharge point is 100 ft (Ferry, Lamarre, and Landgraf, 1990). These flows will result in an increase in wetland vegetation with such species as cattail, rush, and alkali ryegrass becoming established. Also, an increase in cottonwood and willow can be expected. This increase in riparian wetland vegetation would benefit wildlife including sensitive amphibian species such as the tiger salamander and red-legged frog. One possible negative impact would be the development of an extensive area of perennial flow, which could promote fish migration up the creek and result in a reduction of these sensitive amphibian species. However, the low flows at the discharge points (60 to 100 gal per minute at each point), the high porosity of the Corral Hollow Creek bed, and low rainfall/high evapotransporation climate are all factors that would likely prevent this from happening.

Table F-19 Impacts Matrix for Sensitive Species That Have the Potential to Occur at the LLNL Livermore Site and SNL, Livermore

Species^a	Lack of Livestock Grazing	Dry Land Agriculture	Ground Squirrel Poisoning^b	Disking Fire Roads/ Herbicides	Vehicle Traffic	Fencing Facilities	Retention Basin (LLNL)
San Joaquin kit fox	mixed	adverse	slightly adverse	adverse	slightly adverse	none	none
San Joaquin pocket mouse	beneficial	adverse	slightly adverse	adverse	slightly adverse	none	slightly adverse
American badger	beneficial	adverse	slightly adverse	adverse	slightly adverse	none	none
Greater western mastiff bat	none	none	none	none	none	none	beneficial
Golden eagle	slightly adverse	adverse	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	none
Prairie falcon	beneficial	adverse	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	none
Burrowing owl	mixed	adverse	slightly adverse	slightly adverse	none	none	none
Black-shouldered kite	none	adverse	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	none
Northern harrier	beneficial	adverse	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	none
Tricolored blackbird	beneficial	adverse	none	none	none	none	beneficial
California tiger salamander	beneficial	adverse	slightly adverse	none	slightly adverse	none	beneficial
Red-legged frog	beneficial	adverse	none	none	slightly adverse	none	beneficial
Pacific western big-eared bat	none	none	none	none	none	none	beneficial

^a 1991 surveys indicate that none of these species currently occur at the LLNL Livermore site or SNL, Livermore.
^b Impacts will be slightly adverse if the poisoning program is maintained at 1991 levels or less.

Table F-20 Impacts Matrix for Sensitive Species Previously Observed or Having the Potential to Occur at LLNL Site 300

Species	Annual Controlled Burning	Lack of Livestock Grazing	Ground Squirrel Poisoning	Disking Fire Roads and Fire Breaks	Vehicle Traffic	Fencing Facilities	Explosive Testing	Surface Impoundments	Sewage Lagoon
Alameda whipsnake^a	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	none
California tiger salamander^a	none	beneficial	slightly adverse	none	slightly adverse	none	none	slightly adverse	beneficial
Fairy shrimp^a	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	slightly adverse	slightly adverse	none	none	none	none
Greater western mastiff bat^a	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	adverse	beneficial
Pacific western big-eared bat ^a	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	adverse	beneficial
San Joaquin kit fox^b	beneficial	mixed	slightly adverse	adverse	slightly adverse	none	slightly adverse	none	none
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle^c	none	beneficial	none	none	none	none	none	none	none
Tricolored blackbird^a	none	beneficial	none	none	none	none	none	none	beneficial

^a Candidate Category 2 taxa are species for which existing information may warrant listing, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking.
^b Endangered; not observed.
^c Threatened; potential habitat observed.

Table F-21 Impacts Matrix for Sensitive Species Observed During 1991 Surveys at LLNL Site 300

Species	Annual Controlled Burning	Lack of Livestock Grazing	Ground Squirrel Poisoning ^a	Disking Fire Roads and Fire Breaks	Vehicle Traffic	Fencing Facilities	Explosive Testing	Surface Impoundments	Sewage Lagoon
Large-flowered fiddleneck^b	none	beneficial	none	none	none	none	none	none	none
American badger^c	beneficial	beneficial	slightly adverse	adverse	slightly adverse	none	slightly adverse	none	none
Black-shouldered kite^d	beneficial	none	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	slightly adverse	none	none
Burrowing owl^c	beneficial	mixed	slightly adverse	slightly adverse	none	none	slightly adverse	none	none
California horned lizard^c	none	none	slightly adverse	slightly adverse	slightly adverse	none	none	none	none
Golden eagle^c	beneficial	mixed	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	slightly adverse	none	none
Northern harrier^c	mixed	beneficial	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	slightly adverse	none	none
Prairie falcon^c	beneficial	beneficial	slightly adverse	beneficial	none	none	slightly adverse	none	none
Red-legged frog^e	none	beneficial	none	none	slightly adverse	none	none	slightly adverse	beneficial
San Joaquin pocket mouse^e	beneficial	beneficial	slightly adverse	adverse	slightly adverse	none	none	none	none
Short-eared owl^c	mixed	beneficial	slightly adverse	slightly adverse	none	none	slightly adverse	none	none

^a Impacts will be slightly adverse if the poisoning program is maintained at 1991 levels or less.
^b Federal and state endangered.
^c Species of Special Concern (California designation).
^d California Protected.
^e Candidate Category 2 taxa are species for which existing information may warrant listing, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking.

F.2.6 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are designed to minimize or prevent negative impacts that may result from construction activities or site operations at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. These measures are specifically designed for sensitive species observed during the 1991 surveys. Although not recorded in 1991 or during other recent surveys (Orloff, 1986; Rhoads et al., 1981), these measures also address the San Joaquin kit fox.

DOE and UC have several mitigation measures in place; the exclusion of cattle grazing and an annual controlled burn at LLNL Site 300, the use of selective rodenticides at LLNL and SNL, Livermore, a kit fox employee orientation program at LLNL Site 300, and others. In addition, every adopted mitigation measure will be included in one of two documents, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan for LLNL and a Mitigation Action Plan for both LLNL and SNL, Livermore. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan, prepared in compliance with CEQA, will be published concurrently with the Final EIS/EIR. The Mitigation Action Plan, prepared in compliance with NEPA, will be published after the Record of Decision. A proposed outline of the Mitigation Action Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Plan is presented in Appendix N.

Except mitigation measure 4 all of the following measures apply only to LLNL Site 300.
1.	DOE and UC will enhance its current employee awareness program to reflect all mitigation measures. The employee awareness program will include all LLNL employees and contract personnel working at LLNL Site 300.
2.	DOE and UC will ensure that no construction-related activities occur within a 300-ft radius of known locations of elderberry bushes (see Figure F-18). Elderberry bushes are habitat for the federally listed valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
3.	DOE and UC will evaluate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services fairy shrimp sampling protocol when published. The evaluation will focus on the need for additional sampling to ensure consistency between survey techniques described in section F.2.4.5 and those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4.	DOE and UC will continue to limit the use of sulfur cartridges and anticoagulant ground squirrel poisons such as fumarin, sevin, and diphazinone (except within the fenced surface impoundments on LLNL Site 300). Zinc phosphite, which is much less injurious to canids, will remain the rodenticide of choice. (This measure also applies to the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.)
5.	Consistent with current practice, speed limits of 35 miles per hour or less at LLNL Site 300 will be maintained. Vehicle traffic will also be confined to existing roads (paved and unpaved) to the extent possible.
6.	Warning sounds will continue to be broadcast from each testing facility before a detonation. In addition to warning personnel working in the area, this broadcast will scare away birds, particularly raptors, from the explosion test site.
7.	To maintain and promote habitat diversity, DOE and UC will continue to exclude livestock grazing and will continue the annual controlled burning program on LLNL Site 300.
8.	DOE and UC will continue to protect the large-flowered fiddleneck population near the Drop Tower by maintaining the fence, controlling access, and prohibiting activities that may adversely impact the population. A second population is in a remote canyon at a distance from current or proposed activities and requires no additional protection.
9.	DOE and UC will continue to maintain the fire roads and disked areas in the same locations to the extent possible. After evaluation, where possible, duplicate roads paralleling other roads will be eliminated.
10.	Herbicide use will remain limited to areas around buildings and other facilities or eliminated, if possible.
11.	Consistent with current construction practices, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps will be disposed of in a closed container or removed from the construction site.
San Joaquin Kit Fox The San Joaquin kit fox has not been sighted onsite during past surveys (Rhoads et al., 1981; Orloff, 1986) but has been recorded in nearby areas (see Figure F-15). Also, the kit fox is often difficult to detect because populations are generally low in the northern part of its range, which includes LLNL Site 300. Even though there has been no confirmed evidence of the kit fox at LLNL Site 300, the following measures will be taken to protect the San Joaquin kit fox from direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of construction projects.
12.	Undisturbed areas (i.e., areas having minimal recent surface disturbance) that may be affected by proposed construction projects will be surveyed for dens of the San Joaquin kit fox no earlier than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction activities. The survey area will include a minimum 300-ft buffer zone around the proposed construction zone. For new fire trails, linear trenching, or the redisking of the fire break in the northeastern corner of LLNL Site 300, the buffer zone will cover 50 ft on either side of the right-of-way. In addition, a 50-ft buffer zone will be established around monitor well installation. Methods employed during these surveys will follow techniques acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). Disturbed areas will not be surveyed. Because of the enhanced awareness program, however, personnel will be aware of the potential for kit fox at the site. Depending upon the results of the survey outlined in mitigative measure 12, the following measures (13–19) may be implemented.
13.	Consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) recommendations, protective exclusion zones will be established around kit fox dens (see Table F-14 for kit fox den classifications) observed in the 300- or 50-ft buffer zone. These exclusion zones will be the following distances: Known kit fox dens=200 ft. Pupping kit fox dens (dens with sign of pupping activity)=300 ft. Potential kit fox dens=25 ft. DOE and UC will restrict activities within these exclusion zones: only essential vehicle operation will be allowed, and construction, materials storage, or other types of surface-disturbing activity will be prohibited or minimized. New roads will be kept to a minimum and vehicle traffic will be restricted to roads that are necessary for construction. If it is impossible to maintain acceptable exclusion zones, DOE and UC will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to modify exclusion zone dimensions or time restrictions. Alternative courses of action may also be taken (e.g., mitigation measures 17 and 18 below).
14.	Any known and pupping kit fox dens found will be posted with a sign near the den entrance stating the presence of the sensitive resource. To ensure protection of these dens, fencing will be installed around each one following the exclusion distances specified above. The exclusion fencing will consist of large stakes (4- to 5-ft metal or 1×1-inch wooden stakes) connected with a heavy rope or cord, and will be maintained for the duration of the construction project. The exclusion area can be modified as described in measure 13. Potential kit fox dens found within a proposed construction site buffer zone will have 2-ft wooden stakes with flagging placed at the den's entrance and will be maintained for the duration of the construction project.
15.	Monthly checks of known and pupping dens will be conducted to ensure that the signs, stakes, and fencing are still intact. Monitoring will be done as unobtrusively as possible, staying outside the exclusion zones.
16.	To prevent the kit fox (and other species of concern) from being injured or trapped during the construction phase of a project, excavated steep-walled holes or trenches greater than 2 ft deep will be covered with plywood at the close of each working day, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
17.	If potential kit fox dens would be unavoidably destroyed by construction or other related activities, the following procedures will be initiated prior to disturbance. The dens will be monitored by a trained kit fox biologist for 2 to 3 days to determine if it is being used by kit fox. Activity at the dens can be monitored by placing tracking medium at the den's entrance and by night spotlighting. If there is sign of kit fox activity, the dens will be observed for 2 to 3 more days to allow the animal to move to another den during its normal activities. If there is no activity, the den will be destroyed.
18.	If known kit fox dens occur within the areas of proposed disturbance or development, and impact to these resources is unavoidable, the following will be implemented. Prior to the onset of construction and den destruction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will be notified in writing of the intent to destroy dens, and reasons will be provided why alternative courses of action are not possible. The dens will not be impacted until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed action. These agencies may recommend alternative courses of action to avoid den destruction or reduce impacts. If given permission by these agencies, excavation of known kit fox dens may then proceed. When the den is thought to be unoccupied, the entrance can then be progressively plugged with loose dirt for several days to discourage the use of the den while still allowing resident animals to escape easily. When sign of activity at the den ceases and it is deemed safe to do so by a trained kit fox biologist, the den can be dug out with hand tools to a point where it is certain no kit fox is using the den. The den will be fully excavated and then filled with dirt and compacted to ensure that a kit fox cannot reenter the den during the construction period. If at any point a kit fox is thought to be using the den, the plugging or excavation activity will stop, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will be contacted. All plugging and excavation efforts will be conducted by a trained kit fox biologist. If excavation of a pupping den is unavoidable, the plugging and excavation activities will not take place during the breeding season (January through June). Den monitoring and plugging activities will be fully documented and reported in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
19.	If construction activities impact known kit fox dens, then artificial dens may be installed at an agreed-upon location. DOE and UC will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game on the appropriate placement and design of artificial dens.
State Species of Special Concern Because the burrowing owl and American badger are state species of special concern, occur on LLNL Site 300, and may be impacted by the proposed action, the following mitigation measures will be undertaken coincident with kit fox activities.
20.	Undisturbed areas that might be affected by proposed construction projects will be surveyed (including a 300-ft buffer zone) for known burrows or dens of the burrowing owl and American badger no sooner than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction activities. For new fire trails, the buffer zone will cover 50 ft on either side of the right-of-way.
21.	If known dens are identified within the survey area, exclusion zones of 50 ft will be established and delineated.
22.	DOE and UC will restrict activities within these exclusion zones: only essential vehicle operation will be allowed, and construction materials storage, or other types of surface-disturbing activity will be prohibited or minimized. New roads will be kept to a minimum and vehicle traffic will be restricted to roads that are necessary for construction. If it is impossible to maintain acceptable exclusion zones, DOE and UC will consult with the California Department of Fish and Game to modify exclusion zone dimensions.
23.	If known dens will be unavoidably impacted, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game will occur to determine acceptable procedures for destruction of the dens.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)