Attach__No__1B_-_NShorelineStabilizationSLC46.pdf

Biological Opinion

For Shoreline Stabilization Project -SLC- 46 At Cape Canaveral Space Force Station

FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2021-F-0139

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Florida Ecological Services 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200

Jacksonville, FL 32256

Jay B. Herrington - Field Supervisor Date

June 14, 2021

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139 Cape Canaveral Space Force Station ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PROPOSED ACTION

2.1. Construction

2.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Salvage

2.3. Other Activities Caused by the Action

2.4. Action Area

2.5. Tables and Figures

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

5.3. Tables and Figures

6. Effects of the Action on Southeastern Beach Mice

6.1. Construction Activities for Shoreline Stabilization

6.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Salvage

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

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139 iii

CONSULTATION HISTORY

This section lists key events and correspondence during 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).

2020-06-26- The Service, CCSFS and consulting firm discussed via conference call the proposed project

2021-03-17 - The Service had a conference call with Claudia Listopad, Matthew Martin, and Angy Chambers to discuss the proposed conservation measures to salvage beach mice within the Action Area and the pending recovery permit application (TE86495D-0). The consultants, CCSPS, and the Service agreed that for the proposed action any exceptions for section 9 prohibitions (i.e. the capture, take, and salvage of a federally listed species) shall be exempted under the biological opinion. Recovery activities such as scientific research on a listed species in order to understand better the species’ long-term survival needs (i.e. abundance surveys, genetic research, relocations, capture and marking and telemetric monitoring) should be exempted under Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits.

2021-03-18 -The Service provided CCSP draft conservation measures, terms and conditions and reasonable and prudent measures to review and comments.

2021-04-07- The Service requested a map for the BO for the sand source action area and clarification on the acres of impact within the SLC-46.

2021-04-10 - The Service provided a draft BO to CCSFS.

2021-05-25- CCSFS provided an updated map for the North Jetty sand source area.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

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 proposed Launch Complex 46 (SLC-46) Shoreline Stabilization at Cape Canaveral Space 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.

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.

Concurrence

The 45th Space Wing (SW) has determined that the Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Red knot (Calidris canutus), Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). The Service concurs with the determinations based on the information provided in the Biological Assessment for the Launch Complex Shoreline Stabilization Project (Applied Ecology 2020).

The SW has determined that the Action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the following nesting marine turtles: leatherback (Dermocheuls coriacea), green (Chelona mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata).

A small section of the action area overlaps the beach. The sand source is located just north of Port Canaveral on the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. Construction is proposed November 1- April 30th. Sand placement on the beach will follow Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Sand Rules and use beach-compatible sands. The seaward side of the sheet pile will be revegetated with native dune plants.

The applicant has agreed to conservation measures that include avoiding construction and sand removal during the months of May – October. To minimize potential impacts to sea turtle nesting later in the season and identify nests near the project, late nesting surveys shall be conducted to flag any nests north of the project area and the source borrow site. Late season nesting season nesting surveys will commence 65 days prior to construction start date and will be conducted daily through November 11, 2021, or until seven days elapse without a nest being observed.

Tentative plans are to complete the sand placement work before March 2022. If the project is not completed by March 1, 2022, early season nest monitoring will commence on March 1, Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

2022, and shall be conducted daily until project is complete. For both late and early season monitoring, work shall not occur on the nesting beach until morning surveys have been completed and the all clear has been given. Based on the proposed conservation measures: 1) avoiding construction during the majority of sea turtle nesting period, 2) minimizing the likelihood of harm to early or late nesting turtles by monitoring and marking nests, and 3) placing beach-compatible sands within the action area, the Service concurs with CCSFS determination.

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.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

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.

2. PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action includes the installation of a 1,700 ft long, 12 ft high sheet pile wall along the eastern edge of SLC-46. The area has experienced severe erosion resulting in the loss of dunes, undermining of a security fence, and threatening the structural integrity of the launch pad.

The wall will include gravel and sod on the landward side and dune restoration on the seaward side using FDEP approved sand and native dune vegetation.

The following sections deconstruct the Action in two parts: Construction and Southeastern Beach Mouse Salvage.

2.1. Construction

The sheet pile wall will consist of heavy-grade vinyl or fiber-reinforced-polymer with reinforced concrete cap. Additionally, clean (free of soil and debris) boulders (1.8 to 3.0 ft) will be placed on the seaward face of the sheet pile wall on a geotextile. Well-sorted coarse limestone or silica gravel (1 to 3 inches) will be placed on geotextile as scour protection landward of the sheet pile wall to a distance of 10 ft and a depth of 12 inches. Sand or soil, from or equivalent to what is present on site, will then be placed and graded west of the sheet pile wall. Beach-compatible sand, with similar characteristics of the adjacent natural beach, will be placed and graded east of the sheet pile and comply with 62B-41.007(2)(j), F.A.C. (FDEP sand rule). The source of sand for the project is a nearby jetty located on CCSFS property, see Figure 2-2, this area has been used as the source for other BOs.

The sand fill will vary from 0.5 to approximately 5.0 feet in unvegetated areas. Grass sod (Saint Augustine, paspalum, zoysia, or equivalent) will be placed on the fill slope west of the gravel on the landward side of the wall. Native Florida dune plants will be placed along the wall’s seaward side to the base of the dune face slope or elevation of +8.5 ft (whichever is higher). Dune vegetation will consist of at least one row of Spanish Bayonet/Aloe yucca (Yucca alofilia). All other areas will include 76% to 85% sea oats (Uniola paniculata), between 5% and 10% panicgrass (Panicum amarum), and between 5% and 10% native dune plants comprised of at least three of the following plant types: Sea purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum), railroad vine/beach morning glory (Ipomoea pes-caprae), bay bean (Canavalia rosea), dune sunflower (Helianthus debilis, excluding Helianthus debilis subsp. vestitus), beach elder (Iva imbricata), inkberry (Scaaevola plumieri only), beach croton (Croton sp.), seashore dropseed (Sporobolus virginicus), sea ox-eye daisy (Borrichia frutescens), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

Additional activities on the site will include fencing and utilities relocation. Temporary fencing will be installed landward of the action area prior to the removal of the existing fence. After shoreline stabilization work is complete (in whole or parts), permanent fencing (7 ft high galvanized wire and pipe fixed with three strands of barbed wire) will be installed landward within 4 approximately 15 feet of the sheet pile wall cap. Utilities (electrical and communication lines, ducts, and vaults) will be relocated landward from the north end of the action area, where they are otherwise intersected by the proposed shoreline stabilization. The project is anticipated to begin in Fall 2021, with work proximal to the nesting beach only taking place between November 1st, 2021 and April 30th, 2022. It is assumed that work will be allowed to occur from sunrise to sunset 7 days per week.

Conservation measures during the construction phase include the use of existing transportation infrastructure for machinery and material movement to the maximum extent possible.

Additionally, the laydown area (used for the receipt, temporary storage, and sometimes for the assembly of construction equipment and other supplies) will use an already disturbed and mostly impervious area located near the SLC-46 entrance.

2.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Salvage

Conservation measures shall be taken to minimize the impact on Southeastern beach mouse populations during construction. SEBM will be trapped from the action area and release program in the action area. The trap and release program will follow the Service’s Beach Mouse Protocols listed in this project description. Any beach mice captured with the area slated for habitat modification or construction activities will be relocated outside of the project construction area to suitable beach mouse habitat. The area of construction shall be marked with siltation fence or other similar barrier material to delineate the area the construction/ salvage area. Trapping shall occur within days prior to construction to ensure that mice are removed from harm’s way.

Pre-Salvage Planning Activities:

1. Only qualified individuals (i.e., with previous beach mouse trapping experience and approved by the Jacksonville Field Office and CCSPS) may conduct permitted activities within the action area. Approval process consists of sending a CV with qualifications and letters of designations within 30 days of the proposed work.

2. Initiate discussions with North Florida Field Office if any deviations from these protocols are anticipated.

3. Using NOAA National Weather Service point forecasts (forecast.weather.gov), identify predicted low temperatures for the trapping period, as well as any additional threat of heavy rain or severe weather. Also identify moon phase (timeanddate.com). Be aware that mouse activity may be influenced by moon phase.

4. Initiate discussions with North Florida Field Office if temperatures are forecasted to be below 55 degrees. If minimum overnight temperatures are forecasted to reach 50 or below, no full night trapping may occur. However, trapping may occur if all traps will be checked and closed before temperatures fall to 50 or below.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

5. Full night trapping may occur for no more than three consecutive nights in the same location.

6. Identify any additional complications or hazards to trapping (e.g., access issues, government shutdowns, launches, tropical storms, extreme tides, high surf conditions, fire ants, prescribed fires) and modify plans accordingly. Do not conduct trapping if there is a potential of needing to risk human or animal safety in order to check traps in the manner required below. Furthermore, do not plan to set more traps than you can properly and safely check in the time described in these protocols.

7. Avoid impacts to coastal habitat by planning for the minimum number of vehicles and people to participate in the trapping session. Consider travel routes (in vehicles and on foot) that minimize impacts to vegetation.

Deploying and setting traps:

1. Sherman or similar live traps (preferably 2 x 2.5 x 6.5"; no larger than 3 x 4 x 12") may be used. Traps shall be placed so that captured animals will not be subjected to extremes in temperature, predation, flooding, or other hazards.

2. All traps should be individually numbered to ensure no traps are skipped or left in the field. Each trap location must be marked with a pin flag or flagging tape, and GPS data must be collected for each trap location. These three methods, at minimum, must be in place to locate each trap in case of loss.

3. When trapping in areas accessible to the public and not a secured area with limited access, traps must be labeled. Labels must include identification of ownership, LIVE TRAP FOR SMALL MAMMALS – DO NOT TOUCH, and agency name/ contact information.

4. Bait should consist of sunflower seeds (shells on). Non-seed baits, such as peanut butter, readily attract ants and mammalian predators and must not be used.

5. Set the trap with the base in a stable position. Clear and adjust treadles as needed to safely capture mice. A delayed trigger can result in injury.

6. If spotted skunks, raccoons, or similar predators are expected to be abundant and a nuisance in the trapping area, predator excluders must be used so captured beach mice are not subject predation. This is particularly important on the Atlantic Coast, where spotted skunks are prevalent, including Brevard County, where excluders are required in all cases.

7. Nesting material (preferably nestlets or cotton batting) is required at all times, despite temperatures, to provide comfort and reduce anxiety of captured animals.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

8. Low temperatures must be closely monitored during each trapping sessions. Continue discussions with Service beach mouse recovery biologist if temperatures are forecasted to be below 55 degrees, using NOAA National Weather Service point forecasts (forecast.weather.gov). Additional nesting material and bait, and other modifications may be required. If minimum overnight temperatures are forecasted to reach 50 or below, no full night trapping may occur. However, trapping may occur if all traps will be checked before temperatures fall to 50 or below.

9. Do not deploy more traps than you can safely check in the manner required below.

10. Do not leave traps out between trapping periods.

Checking traps:

1. Live-trapping exposes small animals to several risks that could cause injury, mortality, loss of young, cold or heat stress, and predation. All captured animals, regardless if they are the target of the trapping event, must be retained under humane conditions and the effect on their natural behavior must be minimized.

2. Dunes are easily damaged by foot and vehicular traffic. Use the minimum number of people necessary to reduce unnecessary traffic. Do not drive any vehicles on vegetated dunes or other areas with native vegetation.

3. All traps must be checked (and closed) by two after sunrise. For Atlantic Coast subspecies, checking should begin no later than civil dawn (the beginning of civil twilight) (i.e., personnel should be arrived at trapping site and checking first traps, at minimum). (Timeanddate.com can be used to determine sunrise and civil twilight at locations and dates where trapping will occur.)

4. Confirm every trap has been located, visually inspected, and closed when empty. The entire interior of each trap, including behind nestlets or cotton batting, must be visually inspected before closing to assure no small mammals or other animals are inadvertently left in the trap.

5. Process mice while sitting or kneeling on the ground. This minimizes injuries to mice from being dropped or escaping.

6. Handling shall not exceed ten minutes after the trap is checked.

7. Captured mice must be released outside the silt fence/barrier of the construction area near the point of capture (if feasible within 3 m (9 ft) of capture within suitable habitat) unless FWC, CCSFS and Service have approved an alternative location.

8. Mice shall be released at ground level in protected habitat (i.e., do not release in open sand; release next to vegetation). Make sure all personnel remain stationary and aware of the mouse's location upon release, to avoid accidental trampling or crushing.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

9. All events involving cold stressed, lethargic, or injured mice should be reported to North Florida ES Office recovery biologist as outlined in the Monitoring and Reporting Section.

2.3. 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.

2.4. 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 project area for this BO is the SLC- 46, and the action area is the eastern edge boundary where the 1,700 ft long, 12 ft wall will be installed. The footprint of the sheet pile wall will cover about 1.3 acres; however, the area of disturbance for the construction of the wall will be about 4.8 acres. At SLC-46 there are two laydown areas (primary laydown and temporary material area) within the boundary of the launch complex, noted on the Figure 2-1 that total, 2.2 acres. The laydown areas are part of the action

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139 area for the analysis of this BO. The action area also includes the source of sand for the project located near the jetty located on CCSFS property. This sand source was used for other BOs, FWS Log. 2005-1125, 2009-F-0037, 2006-F-070.

2.5. Tables and Figures

Figure 2-1 Action Area for Shoreline Stabilization at SLC-46

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

Figure 2-2 Action Area for Sand Source.

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

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139 text is taken directly from the Status Species Assessment (SSA) that has been peer and agency reviewed. For a complete status of the species refer to the SSA (Service 2020).

The Service published its decision to list the 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 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 CCSFS 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).

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

4.2.3. Home Range

Beach mouse home range size varies among subspecies (Service 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, Service 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.

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, Service 1999).

Beach mice are semifossorial, and may utilize as many as 20 burrows within their home range (Service 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

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139 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.

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.

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, CCSFS, 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.

In the 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.

To assess current condition of the species, the SSA characterizes the amount of 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 (Service 2019).

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

The Canaveral Complex has 92% of the total protected habitat, with the most acres of dune habitat, 2,362 acres, and 17,389 landward habitats.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

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 CCSFS. 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).

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.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

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

The SEBM is found along the entire reach of immediate coastline and within coastal strand on CCSFS in addition to the KSC and Cape Canaveral National Seashore. Recent surveys using tracking tubes have found this species is present in close proximity to the action area (Oddy and Stolen 2016). SEBM was detected at two sites adjacent to the action area (Site 14 and Site 15;

Figure 5-1) in 2016 and 2018, but not in 2017 (Oddy and Stolen 2018). In June 2020, a field review found probable burrow entrances and tracks consistent with SEBM presence adjacent to burrow holes and gopher tortoise burrows (cited in BA, B.G. Ormiston Ph.D., personal observation, June 16, 2020). Based on this information, the Service has enough information to support that the species within SLC-46 and is likely using the action area. The action area also includes the sand source areas, SEBM are have been documented in the disturbed dune habitat near the sand source area. The areas suitable for SEBM will be avoided and excavation of sand will occur on the sandy beach areas and not impacting any of the disturbed dune habitats that could support SEBM in low numbers.

To estimate the number of individuals that may be affected by construction actions, we reviewed home range data and compared it to the acres that will be disturbed within the action area. 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 4.8 acres of area of disturbance plus the primary and secondary laydown areas, 2.2 acres, for a total of 7.0 acres within the action area, the Service estimates 4-8 individual home ranges within action area as well as any supporting nests or juveniles.

5.2. Action Area Conservation Needs

The proposed construction area for SLC-46 is situated west of the beach dune area. Coastal erosion near SLC-46 has changed the land use within the action area. An updated land use layer was provided by CCSFS and used in the Biological Assessment (BA) to compare the 2018 Land Use and 2020 Land Use Classification. Based on this comparison in the BA and there was significant loss of coastal strand and rural open habitat that SEMB typically utilize and as noted on Figure 5-1, the beach has eroded in areas where the SEBM was previously documented.

Shoreline armoring may exacerbate erosion problems on adjacent or nearby properties causing further degradation of beach mouse habitat. In this area SEBM habitat has been lost due to severe erosion and the sheet pile wall will prevent further upland erosion and protect the infrastructure of national importance and the supporting space exploration missions and launches.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

Other conservation needs at SLC-46, 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.

The action area also includes the sand source for the sheet-pile wall construction near the North Jetty. This area is of low quality for SEBM. The sandy beach area has been used as a sand source for multiple projects.

5.3. Tables and Figures

Figure 5-1 Southeaster beach mouse presence/absence results from sites near the Project

Area. Note that as of 2019, Site 14 is underwater. Data provided by USAF.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

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. Construction Activities for Shoreline Stabilization

Construction activities will include heavy equipment to move sand and install the sheet-pile wall.

Based on plans for construction, the Service expects harm to any individuals present via the destruction of burrows during clearing activity or sand movement. Individuals may also be harmed if they are utilizing the previously disturbed primary laydown or secondary laydown areas within the project area at SLC-46. Using action area baseline estimates outlined in section 5.1, we expect all SEBM and/or nestlings within these areas will be exposed to the consequences of habitat destruction and construction activities associated with stabilizing the shoreline. There is also a risk that construction activities within the SLC-46 project area may adversely affect the SEBM that may be using the area as a movement corridor or foraging area.

Construction activities could collapse burrows within the construction area, and we anticipate there is a risk that SEBM may not be able to excavate or escape from a collapsed burrow. The scale of the action area is a small fraction of the geographic segment of the Canaveral Complex Unit. The loss of individuals will not result is adverse population effects or reduce appreciably the species’ likelihood of survival and recovery. After construction activities, we expect the species will have access and can use the seaward habitat and habitat within the lease area as a corridor for movement, refugia, or forage opportunities. Replanting the seaward side of the sheet pile wall with dune vegetation may provide source of foraging and movement corridor after the construction of the wall is complete.

To set a standard for determining when the level of anticipated take has been exceeded, the Service can establish a causal link to construction activities coastal habitats to the harm or “taking” of the species. Section 5.1 describes the action area and Figure 5.1 depicts the coastal habitat and open, ruderal habitat suitable for SEBM within the action area. The linking of habitat within the action area allows the Service to have a clear standard for determining when the level of anticipated take has been exceeded.

6.2. Southeastern Beach Mouse Salvage

The purpose of the SEBM salvage activities is to remove the species from the area where construction and sand placement activities shall occur at SLC-46. To minimize adverse effects to the species before construction activities, saturation trapping should be completed by a qualified biologist and follow the conservation measures outlined in section 2.2, thus reducing the likelihood that the species is harmed via trapping or relocating activities. Because we anticipate that individuals would be harmed during construction, the salvaging of all individuals via

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139 trapping and moving out of the construction area to suitable beach mice habitat would be a net benefit to the species.

The salvage conservation measure does not guarantee that all individuals will be captured or prevent individuals from returning before construction is complete. Due to the local disturbance, the high probability of species presence in the Action Area, the possibility of crushing or accidental entombment if individuals are present, as well as the long term impacts in the area, the Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect some individuals within the Action Area.

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 mouse.

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

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

• After construction activities, we expect the species will access and use the dune vegetation that is replanted on the seaward side of the wall as corridor for movement, refugia, or forage opportunities.

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 a 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

• “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).

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

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 incidental take statement (ITS).

The Action considered in this BO includes the SLC-46 Shoreline Stabilization. This BO considers the effects of the Action on southeastern beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris). The Action does not affect designated critical habitat; therefore, this BO does not address critical habitat.

For the exemption in ESA §7(o)(2) to apply to the Action considered in this BO, the CCSFS must undertake the non-discretionary measures described in this ITS and the project description (e.g. conservation measures), and these measures must become binding conditions of any permit, contract, or grant issued for implementing the Action. Consistent with ESA section 7(b)(4)(C)(iv), the CCSFS has a continuing duty to regulate the Action activities covered by this ITS that are under its jurisdiction. CCSFS is responsible for the Action activities covered by this ITS that are under its control and jurisdiction. The protective coverage of §7(o)(2) may lapse if CCSFS does not:

• adhere to the proposed conservation measures within the project description

• assume and implement the terms and conditions; or

• require a permittee, contractor, or grantee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the ITS through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.

In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the CCSFS must report the progress of the Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this ITS.

8.1. Amount or Extent of Take

This section specifies the amount or extent of take of listed wildlife species that the Action is reasonably certain to cause, which we estimated in the “Effects of the Action” section of this BO.

Table 8-1 identifies the species, life stage(s), estimated number of individuals, the form of take anticipated, and the section of the BO that contains the supporting analysis.

Table 8-1. Estimates of the amount of take (# of individuals) caused by the Action, by species, life stage, and form of take, collated from the cited BO effects analyses.

Common Name Life Stage # of Individuals Form of Take BO Effects

Analysis Section Southeastern Beach Mice

ALL 4-8 Harm 6.1

Southeastern Beach Mice

Adult or Juvenile

ALL Capture 6.2

It is difficult to estimate number of species within the action area, section 5.1 estimates use home ranges, but the actual number of individuals may be lower because the habitat quality and the coastal erosion within the action area.

Shoreline Stabilization SLC46 FWS Log #: 04EF1000-2020-F-0139

Surrogate Measures for Monitoring

For the SEBM, detecting take that occurs incidental to the Action is not practical.