Attach__No__1B_-_L__Relativity_LC.pdf

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PROPOSED ACTION

2.1. Construction

2.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Habitat Enhancement

2.3. Operations

2.4. Other Activities Caused by the Action

2.5. Action Area

3. SOURCES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

4. Status of Southeastern Beach Mouse

4.1. Species Description

4.2. Life History

4.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution

4.4. Conservation Needs and Threats

5. Environmental Baseline for Southeastern Beach Mice

5.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution

5.2. Action Area Conservation Needs

6. Effects of the Action on Southeastern Beach Mice

6.1. Facility Construction and Refurbishment

6.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Habitat Enhancement

6.3. Operations

7. Conclusion

8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

8.1. Amount or Extent of Take

8.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures

8.3. Terms and Conditions

8.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

10. REINITIATION NOTICE

11. LITERATURE CITED

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 iii

CONSULTATION HISTORY

This section lists key events and correspondence during the course of this consultation. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife North Florida Ecological Services’ Office (Service).

2019-10-18 – 45th Space Wing (SW) sent a biological assessment requesting formal consultation for southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi).

2020-12-06- Air Force liaison and Service biologist had a call with the SW to discuss two projects, Space Florida Launch Complex-20, Relativity Launch Complex-16, and the proposed compensation. AF Liaison discussed swapping the proposed compensation to support southeastern beach mice habitat restoration near the launch pads and an opportunity to collaborate with Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to monitor the beach mice near the launch facilities.

2020-01-24- The Service provided a tentative timeframe for the biological opinion (BO), end of February, and asked questions about species presence near or within the Action Area.

2020-01-27 – The Service sent a table that uses the information in BA to deconstruct the action, the new BO template, and a topic sheet on deconstructing the action.

2020-01-30 – The Service responded to SW regarding the determination for eastern indigo snake.

2020-02-04 - SW sent an email revising the effect determinations for two species, the eastern indigo snake determination to “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” and the Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) to “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect.”

2020-02-05 - SW sent an email with the proposed area for southeastern beach mouse habitat enhancement at land management unit 27.

2020-02-11- SW sent an email with the revised map for southeastern beach mouse habitat enhancement/restoration compensation. Habitat enhancement area is between Launch Complex- 16 and Launch Complex-19.

2020-02-18 - The Service sent concurrence letter for the following species: eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, marine turtles: leatherback (Dermocheuls coriacea), green (Chelona mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemps Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), Wood stork (Myteria americana), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and Red knot (Calidris canutus). The letter also requested more information to support the effect determination for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 iv including a breakdown of projected days for operational closures, table with the habitat quality, and proposed habitat management targets.

2020-02-24- AF Liaison and Florida Scrub-Jay recovery biologist met with the SW and members of the space industry, including Relativity Space, to discuss future compatibility of prescribed fire habitat management and operations of the launch facilities.

2020-02-26 - SW revised the determination and sent supporting information to the Service. The supporting documentation for the determinations described that SW will establish an operational window for prescribed fire in the launch schedule.

2020-02-28 - The Service sent a letter to the SW concurring with the may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect determination for Florida Scrub-Jay and requested a 20-day extension for the

BO.

2020-03-04 – Relativity Space and the SW agreed to the 20-day extension for the BO. The Service provided a draft project description of the proposed action for review.

2020-03-19 – The Service provided SW the complete draft to review.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

1. INTRODUCTION

A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), as to whether a Federal action is likely to:

• jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or

• result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

The Federal action addressed in this BO is the refurbishment of the Launch Complex 16, Relativity Launch Complex at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (the Action). This BO considers the effects of the Action on the southeastern beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris).

The Action does not affect designated critical habitat; therefore, this BO does not address critical habitat.

The 45th Space Wing (SW) has determined that the Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), Wood stork (Myteria americana), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and Red knot (Calidris canutus). The Service concurs with these determinations in a letter sent on February 18, 2020.

The SW revised the determination for the Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) to may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the species. The Service asked for more information to support the determination in the concurrence letter sent on February 18, 2020. SW revised the determination to may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida Scrub-Jay on February 26, 2020, and the Service concurred on February 28, 2020.

SW has determined that the Action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect nesting marine turtles: leatherback (Dermocheuls coriacea), green (Chelona mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemps Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). The Service has analyzed programmatically the effects of facility lighting adjacent to nesting marine turtle habitat and has exempted incidental take under the BO, FWS Log. 2009-F-0087. The applicant and the SW have agreed to implement the measures outlined in the opinion and the Service has determined programmatically that such actions that implement all the terms and conditions of the BO will not jeopardize the continued existence of nesting marine turtles.

This BO uses hierarchical numeric section headings. Primary (level-1) sections are labeled sequentially with a single digit (e.g., 1. PROPOSED ACTION). Secondary (level-2) sections within each primary section are labeled with two digits (e.g., 1.1. Action Area), and so on for level-3 sections.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

BO Analytical Framework

A BO that concludes a proposed Federal action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species and is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat fulfills the Federal agency’s responsibilities under §7(a)(2) of the ESA.

“Jeopardize the continued existence means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 CFR §402.02).

“Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species” (50 CFR §402.02).

The Service determines in a BO whether we expect an action to satisfy these definitions using the best available relevant data in the following analytical framework (see 50 CFR §402.02 for the regulatory definitions of action, action area, environmental baseline, effects of the action, and cumulative effects).

a. Proposed Action. Review the proposed Federal action and describe the environmental changes its implementation would cause, which defines the action area.

b. Status. Review and describe the current range-wide status of the species or critical habitat.

c. Environmental Baseline. Describe the condition of the species or critical habitat in the action area, without the consequences to the listed species caused by the proposed action.

The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early consultation, and the impacts of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation.

d. Effects of the Action. Predict all consequences to species or critical habitat caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities caused by the proposed action, which are reasonably certain to occur. Activities caused by the proposed action would not occur but for the proposed action. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences that occur outside the action area.

e. Cumulative Effects. Predict all consequences to listed species or critical habitat caused by future non-Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area.

f. Conclusion. Add the effects of the action and cumulative effects to the environmental baseline, and in light of the status of the species, formulate the Service's opinion as to whether the action is likely to jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

2. PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action (Action) includes the refurbishment of existing facilities at Launch Complex 16 (LC-16), as well as new construction activities. Refurbishment of existing facilities will include the interior remodel of the existing Ready Building for new office space, interior remodel of the existing Block House structure for new instrumentation racks and workstations, reuse of the existing cable tunnel for running new conduit, and interior remodeling of the existing pad structure and buildings.

New construction will include the construction of a horizontal integration facility (hangar structure), a payload processing building, a LOX farm area, a LNG farm area, a LNG flare stack, a new high pressure gas storage area, a new water tank area, an environmental control system building and pad support building, new pad lightning protection poles, and a new parking lot.

New construction will also include a steel launch mount structure, flame deflector, and noise suppression system.

External improvements include exterior retrofitting of the launch pad area to support Relativity Space’s Terran 1 launch vehicle, as well as general existing site improvements that include roadway repairs and existing concrete surface repairs.

The following sections deconstruct the Action in three parts: Construction, Habitat Enhancement, and Operations.

2.1. Construction

The LC-16 lease area is 138.5 acres but most of the area proposed for construction has been previously disturbed and developed in areas. The Action will reuse as much of the existing impervious concrete for planned roads and structures. Construction of the hangar structure, new payload processing building, and new parking lot area requires vegetation clearing and earthwork. The proposed area of construction, 33.91 acres, Figure 2-1, includes 2.35 acres is native coastal scrub or xeric oak habitat that will be cleared.

Within the area of construction there will be heavy machinery and staging areas for construction equipment. The limits within the area of construction will be cleared using heavy machinery.

Cleared material will be placed in wheeled dump trucks for removal from that area. Once vegetation is removed from this area using heavy machinery, much of the site will be graded using large, heavy tracked bulldozers. Material will either be transferred to a suitable off-site area or burned on location in accordance with SW regulations as schedule and burn conditions permit. It is anticipated that all excavated soil will remain onsite within the area of construction.

The duration of proposed construction activities is expected to be approximately 15 months.

Any new or improved roadway will be constructed of compacted soil and appropriate impervious pavement material to support large equipment.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

Figure 2-1. Boundary LC-16, area of construction, and proposed habitat removal

2.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Habitat Enhancement

The habitat enhancement for southeastern beach mouse (SEBM) will be done within a 9.5 acre plot (Figure 2-2). The exact acreage and methodology will be outlined in the scope of work. The SW, the Service, and Relativity Space will be collaborating on a scope of work for the proposed area that will focus on the following:

1. Improve the condition of the ecotone between the primary and secondary habitat, thus improving the condition of the seaward edge of the secondary habitat.

2. Provide corridors from the primary habitat into good and fair condition scrub and other landward habitats.

The scope of work may include track mechanical thinning or hand clearing of coastal scrub habitat and clearing to create corridors to landward scrub habitat. Vegetation will either be removed to a suitable off-site area or incinerated on location in accordance with SW regulations as schedule and conditions permit.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

Figure 2-2. The proposed SEBM habitat enhancement area outlined yellow

2.3. Operations

Relativity may conduct pre-launch testing with the potential to result in a hazard area which exceeds the launch pad boundaries (i.e. outside the fence line) and drives the need to establish procedural controls to ensure the safety of the general public and non-related personnel.

Up to three launches of the Terran 1 orbital launch vehicle will occur in the year of 2021, ramping up to six launches in the year of 2022, and up to 12 launches per year beginning in 2023. Dependent on mission requirements, launches could occur during daylight hours or during nighttime hours. Nighttime hour launching will require operational lighting to support the mission. Launches from LC-16 would require public access controls be put in place to ensure the public remains a safe distance from the launch vehicle during its entire flight.

To maintain the vegetation adjacent to the facility roadways and within the improved areas of LC-16 (area of construction limits in Figure 2-1), standard large-scale grass mowing equipment will be used on a periodic basis. Vegetation will be maintained to about 3 to 5 inches in height in this area.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

2.4. Other Activities Caused by the Action

A BO evaluates all consequences to species or critical habitat caused by the proposed Federal action, including the consequences of other activities caused by the proposed action, that are reasonably certain to occur (see definition of “effects of the action” at 50 CFR §402.02).

Additional regulations at 50 CFR §402.17(a) identify factors to consider when determining whether activities caused by the proposed action (but not part of the proposed action) are reasonably certain to occur. These factors include, but are not limited to:

(1) past experiences with activities that have resulted from actions that are similar in scope, nature, and magnitude to the proposed action;

(2) existing plans for the activity; and

(3) any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements necessary for the activity to go forward.

In its request for consultation, the SW did not describe, and the Service is not aware of, any additional activities caused by the Action that are not included in the previous description of the proposed Action. Therefore, this BO does not address further the topic of “other activities” caused by the Action.

2.5. Action Area

The action area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR §402.02). Delineating the action area is necessary for the Federal action agency to obtain a list of species and critical habitats that may occur in that area, which necessarily precedes any subsequent analyses of the effects of the action to the species or critical habitats.

It is practical to treat the action area for a proposed Federal action as the spatial extent of its direct and indirect “modifications to the land, water, or air” (a key phrase from the definition of “action” at 50 CFR §402.02). Indirect modifications include those caused by other activities that would not occur but for the action under consultation. The action area determines any overlap with critical habitat and the physical and biological features therein that we defined as essential to the species’ conservation in the designation final rule. For species, the action area establishes the bounds for an analysis of individuals’ exposure to action-caused changes, but the subsequent consequences of such exposure to those individuals are not necessarily limited to the action area.

Figures 2-1 and 2-2 shows the locations of all activities that the proposed Action that would cause changes to land, water, or air caused by these activities. The action area for this BO is the LC- 16 lease area boundary, 138.5 acres, of which 33.91 acres is the proposed area of construction - and the proposed 9.5 acre habitat enhancement area.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

3. SOURCES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

A BO must predict the consequences to species caused by future non-Federal activities within the action area, i.e., cumulative effects. “Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation” (50 CFR §402.02). Additional regulations at 50 CFR §402.17(a) identify factors to consider when determining whether activities are reasonably certain to occur. These factors include, but are not limited to: existing plans for the activity; and any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements necessary for the activity to go forward.

In its request for consultation, the SW did not describe, and the Service is not aware of, any future non-Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area.

Therefore, we anticipate no cumulative effects that we must consider in formulating our opinion for the Action.

4. STATUS OF SOUTHEASTERN BEACH MOUSE

This section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of the throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion about the Action. Most of this information is taken directly from the draft Status Species Assessment (SSA) that is currently under peer-review.

The Service published its decision to list the southeastern beach mouse (SEBM) as threatened species under the Act in 1989 (54 FR 20598). Critical habitat is not designated for this subspecies, and therefore will not be analyzed in this opinion.

4.1. Species Description

The SEBM is one of 16 recognized subspecies of old field mice Peromyscus polionotus (Hall 1981); it is one of the eight of those subspecies that are called beach mice. The SEBM is a small mouse that reaches an average length of 136 mm with an average body mass of 14.5 g (Stout 1992). Southeastern beach mice have pale, buffy coloration from the back of their head to their tail, and their underparts are white.

4.2. Life History

SEBM are generally nocturnal, semifossorial, and monogamous. The subspecies occupies foredunes (i.e., frontal, primary, and secondary), transitional (i.e., coastal grasslands and coastal strand) dunes, coastal scrub dunes. SEBM also occur in interior scrub and other landward habitats, though the extent to which these areas utilized is unclear. Below is a summary of the

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 various elements of the SEBM life history, including reproduction, survival and mortality, foraging, home range, burrowing behavior, and habitat.

4.2.1. Survival and Mortality

The average life span of beach mice in the wild is 9 months to one year (Bird et al. 2016, Oddy 2000, Swilling 2000), although a few individuals have been known to live longer than two years.

Studies at CCAFS found the mean longevity of SEBM on across study grids was 113 days with no significant differences between sexes (Oddy 2000). Maximum longevity in this study was 596 days. Swilling and Wooten (2002) found longer persistence times associated with mice dispersing further away from their natal home range, perhaps a result of reduced predation rates.

4.2.2. Foraging

Beach mice are food generalists and feed on a variety of seeds of dune and scrub plants and insects (Moyers 1996, Sneckenberger 2001, Keserauskis 2007).

Studies show that the diet of the SEBM varies seasonally and among and within habitats, and fruits, seeds and arthropods that feed on them comprise most of their diet (Keserauskis 2007).

In most cases, fruits and seeds that are consumed by beach mice are produced by low growing, prostrate plants, on supple stems easily manipulated by mice, or as the fruits and seeds become available as fallen seeds (Moyers 1996). Beach mice also consume invertebrates, especially during late winter or early spring when seeds are scarce (Ehrhart 1978).

4.2.3. Home Range

Beach mouse home range size varies among subspecies (USFWS 2010) and may vary seasonally and in relation to density as well as habitat and food resources. Beach mouse home ranges average approximately 1.2 acres (Bird 2016). Swilling and Wooten (2002) found the mean home range for Anastasia beach mice (ABM) (both sexes) was approximately 0.89 acres, whereas using radio telemetry data, Lynn (2000) found home ranges of 1.68 acres and 1.73 acres for males and females respectively; neither study noted significant differences in home range size between males and females.

Blair (1951) found home ranges of beach mice living in the comparatively dense cover of the beach dunes averaged significantly larger in the spring than in the fall. Beach mice tend to inhabit a single home range throughout their lifetime and will often maintain several burrows within their home range (Blair 1951). Extine and Stout (1987, USFWS 1999) reported movements of the SEBM between the primary dunes and interior scrub on Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) and concluded that home ranges can overlap and reach high densities within preferred habitats.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

4.2.4. Burrows

While multiple species of Peromyscus will excavate burrows, P. polionotus is the only member of the genus that excavates its own burrow, which is extensive (Ehrhart 1978, USFWS 1999).

Beach mice are semifossorial, and may utilize as many as 20 burrows within their home range (USFWS 1999). Beach mice will use burrows as a place to rest during the day and between nightly foraging bouts. Burrows are also used for escape from predators, birthing and caring for young.

Burrows generally consist of an entrance tunnel, nest chamber, and escape tunnel (Weber et al.

2013). High predation risk and the harsh coastal environment make selection of quality burrow sites critical for survival of beach mice (Swilling and Wooten 2002). Beach mice have been found to select burrow sites based on a suite of biotic and abiotic features. (Lynn 2000;

Sneckenberger 2001).

Bird et al. (2004) in a study exploring the effects of artificial illumination on the behaviors of beach mice found that patch use was affected by the presence of illumination, light type, and distance from light source. In this study, foraging frequency was significantly higher in dark arrays and that more seeds were removed from resource patches as distance from illumination increased. This is consistent with the observation that beach mice activity decreases in response to increased levels of moonlight due to elevated risk perceptions (Stoddard et al. 2018).

4.2.5. Habitat

Beach mouse habitat includes a heterogeneous mix of interconnected coastal communities on barrier islands. Holler (1992) described beach mouse habitat at the time as including primary and secondary dunes vegetated by sea oats, beach grass (Panicum amarum), and blue stem (Andropogon maritimus). Contemporary understandings of the geographic distribution of beach mouse habitat is that beach mice inhabit coastal dune, strand, and scrub habitats (where available) that range from being comprised mostly of grasses to mostly shrubs (Sneckenberger 2001, Suazo et al. 2009, Stout et al 2012, Wilkinson et al. 2012, Breininger et al. 2018).

Additionally, the coastal strand and scrub plant communities (e.g. Cape Canaveral area) likely serve as refugia for and sources of individuals that disperse into dune systems after storm events (Stout et al. 2012).

Coastal communities of Florida can be classified into three general zones. These zones, as described by Johnson and Barbour (1990) and used in the draft Species Status Assessment include foredunes (frontal, primary, and secondary), transitional dunes (coastal grasslands and strands), and coastal scrub dunes. Additionally, beach mice are known to utilize adjacent or connected landward habitats including interior scrub (particularly within the Cape Canaveral), ruderal or old-field environments, and mowed roadside edges and rights-of-way.

Foredunes occur in the zone nearest the shoreline, but beyond the limits of the forces of annual wave action (Johnson and Barbour 1990) and include dunes frequently referred to as frontal, primary, and secondary. There is considerable uncertainty regarding optimal ranges of habitat conditions for SEBM in foredune areas. Given the differences in beach mouse habitats between

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, additional research is needed to accurately define optimal habitat conditions within foredune areas specific to SEBM.

Transitional dunes are in the zone situated between the foredunes and more distinct natural communities such as coastal scrub or maritime hammock (FNAI 2010). Transitional dunes may include herbaceous natural communities such as coastal grasslands as well as areas with a higher prevalence of woody plants such as coastal strand.

Coastal scrub dunes are typically located behind the foredunes. In addition to the shrubbier form of live oak, plant assemblages in this community include myrtle oak (Q. myrtifolia), saw palmetto, and yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria) (Kurz 1942, Johnson and Barbour 1990) within a matrix of open sand areas. The low stature of coastal scrub is maintained via the effects of salt spray to terminal buds of plants (Johnson and Barbour 1990). Similarly, to inland scrub habitats (described below), periodic fires are integral to the maintenance of coastal scrub systems. In the absence of fire or in combination with fire, mechanical treatments may be used to manipulate the structure of vegetation within scrub communities.

While the predominance of SEBM occurrence within scrub type habitats is in the coastal scrub dunes, SEBM are known to occur in more interior scrub environments within the Cape Canaveral Complex. The cape feature at Cape Canaveral is unique among SEBM habitats as it includes a broad expanse of upland habitats between the Atlantic coast and the Banana and Indian Rivers. Beyond the Cape Canaveral, SEBM habitat generally occurs in narrow stretches along the shoreline.

While seasonally abundant, the availability of food resources in the foredunes fluctuates (Sneckenberger 2001). In contrast, the scrub habitat provides a more stable level of food resources, which becomes crucial when food is scarce or nonexistent in the primary and secondary dunes. Furthermore, the coastal scrub dunes appear to serve as refugia for beach mice during and after tropical storm events (Holliman 1983, Swilling et al. 1998), from which recolonization of the foredunes takes place (Swilling et al. 1998, Sneckenberger 2001). This suggests that access to primary, secondary, and coastal scrub habitat is essential to beach mice at the individual and population levels and to some extent at the range wide level. Additionally, studies have found no detectable differences between scrub and frontal dunes in beach mouse body mass, home range size, dispersal, reproduction, survival, food quality, and burrow site availability (Swilling et al. 1998, Swilling 2000, Sneckenberger 2001). It should be noted that the presence of “scrub” habitat with or without storm events as a driving factor for SEBM is known only for the Cape Canaveral area and portions of the panhandle; the entire dune system of the CNS and other areas of SEBM habitat mostly lack this feature.

Beyond the foredunes, transitional areas and coastal scrub, barrier islands often grade into stabilized dunes where shrubby plant communities give way to canopied forests. Stable dune areas may include maritime hammocks and forests that are not considered suitable beach mouse habitat. SEBM rarely, if ever, occur in areas where woody vegetation >2m is dominant (Stout 1992). Additionally, while Toombs’ (2001) captured SEBM in the primary dunes and none were captured in dense areas of saw palmetto where it may be more difficult to burrow, this does not

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 appear to be representative of occupancy of SEBM within the Cape Canaveral Complex in more dense and unmanaged coastal habitats (Oddy personal communication, 2019). There is research that provides evidence of long-term occupancy of interior scrub habitats by SEBM within the CCAFS (Stout 1979, Suazo et al. 2009, Simmons 2008).

The three general zones can be classified into two habitat classes for SEMB. Primary habitat identifies the characteristic dune habitats typically occupied by SEBM (foredunes, transitional dunes, and coastal scrub dunes). Secondary habitats include interior scrub and other natural and human-altered landscapes landward of the dunes that provide critical refugia habitat and may support SEBM resource needs, may provide movement corridors, or may support an extension of a population.

4.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution

4.3.1. Numbers and Distribution

SEBM are found in coastal habitats of Florida’s east coast. The 1989 Final Listing Rule states that the subspecies was known to occur on Canaveral National Seashore (CNS), MINWR, CCAFS, the north and south ends of Orchid Island at Sebastian Inlet area and Fort Pierce Inlet State Park (also known as north Hutchinson Island) on the north side of Ft.

Pierce Inlet.

The Recovery Plan for the Anastasia Island Beach Mouse and the Southeastern Beach Mouse (USFWS 1993) described the limits of occurrence of SEBM from Volusia County at Canaveral National Seashore south to 7 miles north of the Brevard County line and including scattered localities in Indian River County, and St. Lucie County. At the time of listing, in areas south of St. Lucie Inlet, nearly all dune habitat was developed and unsuitable for beach mice (USFWS 1988). Some potentially suitable habitat remains within public conservation lands on Jupiter Island, St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park, Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge and in Palm Beach County at John D. MacArthur Beach State Park.

In the draft SSA, the Service reviewed the extant and historic distribution of the species range wide and grouped the populations into geographic segments: Canaveral North, Canaveral South, Orchid Island/ Hutchinson Island North, Hutchinson Island, Jupiter Island, Jupiter South, Palm Beach, Boynton, and Hillsboro. The geographic segments are illustrated in Figure 4-1. and includes inlet locations associated with limits of historic range (light grey box), limits of range at the time of federal listing (1989; medium grey box), current range where two extant populations are known to occur (dark grey box), and areas of uncertain occupancy (red dashed lines).

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

FIGURE 4.1 SEBM RANGE MAP – Extant and Likely Extirpated.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

To assess current condition of the species, the draft SSA characterizes the amount of primary and secondary habitat within the geographic segments across the range of species. The geographic segments are parsed in eight different resilience units. The Canaveral Complex resilience unit is the most important for the recovery of the species.

The Canaveral Complex Unit is a metapopulation and has the most habitat to support the species.

The Canaveral Complex has 89% of the total protected habitat, with the most acres of primary habitat, 3,377 acres, and 11,897 secondary habitats. Within the secondary habitat, the natural communities within occur at a fine-scale mosaic of conditions that may or may not be suitable for SEBM.

4.3.2. Reproduction

Beach mice have a monogamous mating system (Blair, 1951, Smith 1966, Lynn 2000). Mated pairs tend to remain associated in acquiring food and sharing burrows (Blair 1951). Beach mice reach sexual maturity at 55 days of age; however, some mice are capable of breeding earlier (Ehrhart 1978).

Peak breeding season for beach mice appears to occur between November and early January (Blair 1951) and appears to coincide with increased availability of food from the previous growing season (Rave and Holler 1992); although pregnant and lactating SEBM have been observed in all seasons (Stout 1979, Oddy et al. 1999, Oddy 2000, Bard personal communication, 2019).

While the reproductive potential of beach mice is generally high, Blair (1951) reported only 19.5 percent of beach mice within his study survived from January to May in the same year indicating that mortality of adult beach mice is also quite high.

4.4. Conservation Needs and Threats

4.4.1. Conservation Needs

There is considerable uncertainty regarding beach mouse use of the scrub and more stable, interior habitats, particularly within the CCAFS. Future research is needed to better define optimal habitat conditions for SEBM in coastal scrub and interior scrub habitats. Habitat conditions within the interior scrub areas that benefit the threatened Florida Scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) may also benefit SEBM (Suazo et al. 2009). While ranges of habitat conditions occur as a result of management regimes and techniques, optimal habitat conditions for Florida Scrub-jays within the interior scrub within the Canaveral Complex includes a more open habitat structure (Breininger 1992, Breininger et al. 2003, USFWS 2007) that is ideally maintained with use of periodic prescribed fire. Optimal fire-return intervals may be shorter in coastal scrub habitats than in more interior locations (Schmalzer and Hinkle 1992), which may result in less desirable SEBM conditions in the more interior areas. Depending on the matrix of vegetation within the coastal scrub and adjacent habitats, fire return frequencies vary from 3 to

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

10 years (USFWS 2007). In the absence of fire, the cover and stature of woody vegetation increases, often resulting in the loss of open areas.

4.4.2. Threats

Habitat loss and fragmentation due to destruction associated with residential and commercial development has created disjunct and isolated populations of SEBM along the east coast of Florida. South of the Port Canaveral Entrance Chanel, five inlets between Indian River and Broward Counties create additional barriers to dispersal. Most remaining SEBM habitat occurs on public conservation lands, though some private lands also support areas of natural dune vegetation that could be occupied by beach mice (e.g. St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, undeveloped lots, and undeveloped portions of residential and commercial lots). As a result, extant populations of SEBM are geographically and thus genetically, isolated. Within the current landscape configuration, natural dispersal between existing populations is highly unlikely.

Other threats to the species include shoreline armoring to protect coastal to protect coastal properties from erosion, coastal lighting at facilities or residential development, vehicular or foot traffic near developments, and climate change.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE FOR SOUTHEASTERN BEACH MICE

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the southeastern beach mice its habitat, and ecosystem within the action area. The environmental baseline is a “snapshot” of the species’ health in the action area at the time of the consultation and does not include the effects of the Action under review.

5.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution

At CCAFS mice typically occur from the coastal dunes inland to the west side of Samuel C.

Phillips Parkway, and are generally found where the sand is suitable for burrows, coastal scrub is present, and the water table is not close to the surface. SEBM have also been documented inside facilities throughout CCAFS. Inland populations abundance varies from site to site inland of the dune system. Nearly every coastal scrub site surveyed on CCAFS supports beach mice. The SW collects SEBM presence data via tracking tubes. The action area has a tracking tube detection station within primary habitat, station 24. This station has had detections in 4 of the 9 years sampled (2011, 2012, 2014, 2018).

Using the GIS layer created for the draft SSA, we reviewed distribution the primary and secondary habitat within the action area (Figure 5.1). The lease area is 138.5 acres with 9 acres of primary habitat (foredunes), and 39 acres secondary habitat (human altered habitat landward of the dune). The area of construction has about 3 acres of secondary habitat, mostly found on the entrance road and around the launch facility structures.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

To estimate the number of individuals within the action area, we reviewed home range data and acres of habitat. Beach mouse home ranges average approximately 1.2 acres (Bird 2016), .89 acres for both male and female (Swilling and Wooten 2000), and 1.68 acres and 1.73 acres for males and females respectively (Lynn 2000). Using the 9 acres of primary habitat (light blue), we estimate the action area has between 4 – 10 individuals. We expect those individuals may utilize the secondary habitat (pink) and the coastal scrub (red) for foraging, burrows, and travel corridors.

Figure 5-1. Habitat types (primary and secondary) within the action area

5.2. Action Area Conservation Needs

The proposed construction area for LC-16 is situated 425 feet west of the beach dune area;

outside the primary SEBM habitat. The eastern edge (outside the defined area of construction) has beach dune systems dominated my sea oats. The coastal scrub encompasses much of the eastern portion of LC-16. Figure 5-1 shows the habitat types within the action area.

To support SEBM, the coastal scrub should be managed, particularly areas that connect to seaward edge of the secondary habitat. Restoration and management of the primary and

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

¹0 0.1 0.2 Miles

SEBM Enhancement Area

SEBM Habitat Types

Primary

33.91 ac

Coastal Scrub Habitat Impact

2.35 ac

Area of Construction

Secondary

Project Boundary

138.5 ac lease area

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 secondary habitat may provide increased connectivity, allow for storm refugia, and diverse forage.

SEBM are at increased risk to predation and modify their foraging behavior when exposed to artificial lighting. Lighting should be managed to protect coastal species including SEBM which are vulnerable to excessive coastal lighting.

6. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON SOUTHEASTERN BEACH MICE

In a BO for a listed species, the effects of the proposed action are all reasonably certain consequences to the species caused by the action, including the consequences of other activities caused by the action. Activities caused by the action would not occur but for the action.

Consequences to species may occur later in time and may occur outside the Action Area.

We identified and described the activities included in the proposed Action in sections 2.1–2.3.

Our analyses of the consequences caused by each of these activities follows.

6.1. Facility Construction and Refurbishment

Construction activities will include heavy equipment to clear coastal scrub and xeric oak in inland areas. The consequences of the action, i.e. removing suitable habitat where the species is known to be present, will likely result in the destruction of secondary habitat that may support resource needs such as foraging and a movement corridor. The habitat could also support burrows and nesting. Construction duration, approximately 15 months, will cover at least one peak breeding season (November –January), possibly two depending on when construction starts.

Based on plans for construction, clearing 2.35 acres of coastal scrub and xeric oak is required for facility construction. The Service expects harm to any individuals or destruction of burrows during clearing activity. Individuals may also be harmed if they are utilizing the 3 acres of secondary habitat within the construction area. We anticipate not all the species within the action area will be exposed to the effects based on the location of the work and habitat type (e.g. outside of the dune or primary habitat). Using action area baseline estimates outlined in section 5.1, we expect no more than two monogamous pair and nestlings will be exposed to the consequences of the action where the coastal scrub clearing will occur. There is also some risk that construction activities within the 33.91 acres of the project area may adversely affect the SEBM that may be using the area as a movement corridor. However, most, if not all, of the construction will occur within the daytime periods when mice are typically inside burrowing habitat and not out moving within the habitat.

The scale of the action area is a small fraction of the geographic segment of the Canaveral Complex Unit. The loss of up to four individuals will not result is adverse population effects or reduce appreciably the species’ likelihood of survival and recovery. Additionally, the refurbishment of the launch facility and loss of coastal scrub will not place barrier for species movement, a threat to the species described in section 4.4. After construction activities, we

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399 expect the species will have access and can use the secondary habitat within the lease area as a corridor for movement, refugia, or forage opportunities.

To set a standard for determining when the level of anticipated take has been exceeded, the Service can establish a causal link to habitat clearing (e.g., coastal scrub) to the harm or “taking” of the species. The linking of this habitat type within the action area will allow the Service to have a clear standard for determining when the level of anticipated take has been exceeded.

6.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Habitat Enhancement

The purpose of the SEBM habitat enhancement plan is to address the conservation needs of the species within the action area. The habitat enhancement plan and monitoring shall be developed with the Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and SW with support of Relativity Space. The plan will include an FWC monitoring component to monitor how the species is using the coastal scrub habitat between the space launch facilities.

The removal dense woody vegetation and coastal scrub management will allow for species movement and increase forage quality in the secondary habitat. If project timing allows, the Service is recommending that the habitat enhancement area serve as a recipient site for mice found within the construction area (described in Section 8, Conservation Recommendations).

The recommendation includes saturation trapping of SEBM in areas that are slated for construction, roadways or anywhere habitat modification shall occur. To minimize adverse effects to the species, saturation trapping should be completed by a qualified biologist, thus minimizing the likelihood that the species is harmed via trapping or relocating activities. Because we anticipate that several individuals would be harmed during construction, the salvaging all individuals via trapping and moving the newly restored area would be a net benefit to the species.

If salvage activities cannot occur due to project timelines or the timeline of the habitat restoration component, the restoration and enhancement of coastal scrub will still provide a net benefit to the species and addresses the conservation needs of the species range wide and within the action area.

6.3. Operations

SEBM have been documented inside facilities throughout CCAFS, the SW has a Programmatic BO that covers pest management activities within and around such facilities. Per the Programmatic BO, Relativity Space will be required to live trap and release mice within and around its facilities on LC-16.

During facility operations, rocket launches may startle SEBM, and noise associated with landing, though not as loud, may do the same. Noise impact to wildlife is expected to be minimal and discountable. Current and past launch programs at CCAFS, the Atlas, Titan, and Delta launches did not document any animal mortality associated with noise.

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

Operational lighting at the facility may have adverse effects to the species by disrupting foraging behavior. Nighttime launches and the lighting needed to support these events will have some adverse effects, but it is anticipated not to last more than a few days to support the launch activity. We expect that the lighting will be managed to standards outlined in the Programmatic Sea Turtle Biological Opinion, 2009-F-0087 and conform to the SW Instruction 32-7001. This will minimize lighting and restrict lighting visible to the beaches during sea turtle nesting season (1 May through 31 October). Beach mice will likely benefit from these restrictions, but the period does not cover the wintertime, a peak period for SEBM.

7. CONCLUSION

“Jeopardize the continued existence” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR §402.02). After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s BO that the Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the southeastern beach mice.

The Service has come to this conclusion based on the following:

• The loss of up to four individuals within the action area will not result is adverse population effects or reduce appreciably the species’ likelihood of survival and recovery.

• The refurbishment of the launch facility and loss of coastal scrub will not place barrier for species movement that will preclude or delay recovery goals.

• After construction activities, we expect the species will access and use the remaining or newly restored secondary habitat within the lease area as a corridor for movement, refugia, or forage opportunities.

• Restoration of coastal scrub addresses conservation needs of the species within the action area and recovery needs for the species range wide.

8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

ESA §9(a)(1) and regulations issued under §4(d) prohibit the take of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife species without special exemption. The term “take” in the ESA means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (ESA §3(19)). In regulations, the Service further defines:

• “harm” as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering;” (50 CFR §17.3) and

Relativity Launch Complex -16 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0399

• “incidental take” as “takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant” (50 CFR §402.02).

Under the terms of ESA §7(b)(4) and §7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to a Federal agency action that would not violate ESA §7(a)(2) is not considered prohibited, provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of an…