Attachment 7 - Biological Opinion.pdf

TO

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IL1J

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office

1F 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, California 93003

IN REPLY REFER TO:

O8EVENOO-2016-F-0275

July6,2016

Nam Nguyen Environmental Engineer Federal Aviation Administration 15000 Aviation Boulevard Lawndale, California 90260

Subject: Biological Opinion on the Santa Maria Public Airport Runway 30 Replace Visual Approach Slope Indicator with Precision Approach Path Indicator Project, Santa Maria, California (2016-F-0275)

Dear Mr. Nguyen:

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed project to replace the existing Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VAST) at Runway 30 of the Santa Maria Airport with a new Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) and its effects on the federally endangered California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and its critical habitat, and threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonli) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.

1531 et seq.) (Act). We received your February 11, 2016, request for formal consultation by electronic mail on February 12, 2016.

We have based this biological opinion on information that accompanied your February 11, 2016, request for consultation and other information in our files including previous biological opinions (8-8-9-F-63R; l-8-06-f-6). We can make available a complete record of this consultation at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.

Consultation History

We initially received letters from you on November 3, 2015, requesting informal consultation for one part of the proposed project (installation of an underground duct bank, road repair, and trenching to connect the PAPI system to an existing shelter) and an amendment to the previous biological opinion (8-8-9-f-63R) for another part of the proposed project (removal of existing VAST infrastructure and installation of PAPI infrastructure). Afler discussion with Service biologists you combined both requests into a single request for formal consultation alongside other changes to the proposed project.

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 2

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to replace the existing VASI at Runway 30 of the Santa Maria Airport with a PAPI. Removal of the existing VAST system would involve removing the VASI system foundations as well as nearby building material (e.g.

gravel) and restoring the site to match the surroundings. Existing underground ductwork associated with the VASI system would be abandoned in place. Installation of the PAPI system would involve construction of an access road from existing infrastructure to one of two potential PAPI installation sites (either north or south of Runway 30), the placement of four light housing assembly units at the PAPI installation site, and trenching/boring from existing infrastructure to an existing building shelter for installation of an underground duct bank used by the PAPI system. Activities associated with this project would include grading, trenching, boring, concrete installation, weed control, compaction, and aggregate placing. Equipment would be staged on existing infrastructure. The project is expected to permanently impact 0.7 acre near the southeastern extent of runway 30. The proposed project would start during the summer of 2016 with a 30 day construction timeline.

The FAA proposes to adapt the avoidance and minimization measures included in a previous biological opinion (Service 2013) and discussed during a phone conversation on April 13, 2016, with you and Dou-Shuan Yang of my staff, for the proposed project. Avoidance and minimization measures for this project are given below:

1. At least 15 days prior to the onset of project activities, the FAA will submit to the Service for approval the names and credentials of biologists that will conduct activities specified in the following measures to protect California tiger salarnanders and California red-legged frogs. No project activities within suitable habitat will begin until the FAA receives written approval from the Service stating that that biologist(s) is/are qualified to conduct the work.

2. Immediately preceding any project activities, a Service-approved biologist will perform a pre-construction survey. The Service-approved biologist will carefully search all obvious potential hiding spots for California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, such as small mammal burrows. Any California tiger salamanders or California red-legged frogs found within these upland areas will be captured and held for no more than the minimum amount of time necessary to release them in suitable habitat outside of the construction area. Only Service-approved biologists will participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs.

3. Prior to any construction activities, a Service-approved biologist will conduct a training session for all project personnel. At a minimum, the training will include a description of

Nam Nguyen (2016-f-0275) 3 the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog and their habitats; the general provisions of the Act; the necessity for adhering to the provisions of the Act; the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act; the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog while this project is being conducted; and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. The training program will also cover the restrictions and guidelines that must be followed by all construction personnel to reduce or avoid impacts to these species during project implementation. The Service-approved biologist will be responsible for ensuring that crew members adhere to the guidelines and restrictions.

Multiple education programs will be conducted as needed to train new personnel brought on the job.

4. Prior to California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog relocation activities at the project site, the Service-approved biologist will identify a nearby suitable site with undisturbed upland habitat for California tiger salamanders (e.g., small mammal burrow complexes with active small mammal colonies), and suitable aquatic habitat for California red-legged frogs (e.g., dense, shrubby or emergent vegetation closely associated with deep-water pools that support fringes of cattails (Typha sp.) and dense stands of overhanging vegetation such as willows (Salix sp.)). All California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs that are relocated during project activities will be placed in the appropriate relocation site.

5. A Service-approved biologist will be present at the work site until such time as all removal of California tiger salamander and California red-legged frogs, instruction of workers, and clearing activities have been completed. Additionally, a Service-approved biologist will be present during initiation of any ground-disturbing activities. Afler this time, the FAA will designate a person to monitor on-site compliance with all conservation measures. The Service-approved biologist will ensure that the designated person receives the training discussed previously (see item number 3).

6. The Service-approved biologist will have the authority to stop construction activities and will immediately contact the Service when listed species are encountered or unintended indirect effects to listed species or habitat occur. If the biologist determines that construction activities must stop because a listed species is encountered that may be affected, all project activities will cease immediately, except those activities necessary to make the airport safe and operational. Construction activities cannot be resumed until appropriate corrective measures are taken. If a California tiger salamander or California red-legged frog is observed within a designated work area and cannot be avoided, all work will stop until the animal leaves the work area or until it is captured and relocated by a Service-approved biologist to a location outside of the work area.

7. During construction, a Service-approved biologist will inspect all trenches immediately before items are installed in those trenches. The Service-approved biologist will inspect

Nam Nguyen (2016-f-0275) 4 the trenches to detect and relocate any California tiger salamanders or California red-legged frog that may have moved into the trench from an underground passage.

8. If trenches are to be left open overnight, they will be covered to ensure that California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs do not enter the project area and become trapped in the trench. Covered trenches will contain moist reftigia (e.g., sterilized shallow containers with moist leaf duff or other native plant material) to prevent desiccation of amphibians that may become trapped in the trench overnight. If any trenches will be left uncovered overnight, they will be inspected by a Service-approved biologist within two (2) hours of sunrise each morning (including weekends and days when construction does not occur) to remove any California tiger salamanders or California red-legged frogs that may inadvertently enter the trench.

9. California tiger salamanders will be captured with bare hands only by a Service-approved biologist; nets may be used to capture California red-legged frogs. Service-approved biologists will not use latex gloves, soaps, oils, creams, lotions, repellants, or solvents of any sort on their hands before and during periods when they are capturing and relocating these species. Additionally, Service-approved biologists will not use nicotine products before and during periods when they are capturing and relocating these species.

10. The Service-approved biologist(s) will limit duration of handling and captivity of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs to a minimum. While in captivity, individuals of these species will be kept in a cool, moist, aerated environment, such as a bucket fitted with a lid containing a damp sponge. Containers used for holding or transporting these species must not contain standing water.

11. To avoid transferring disease or pathogens between aquatic habitats during the course of California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog surveys, Service-approved biologists will follow the Declining Amphibian Population Task force’s Code of Practice. A copy of this Code of Practice is enclosed. A bleach solution (0.5 to 1.0 cup of bleach to 1.0 gallon of water) may be substituted for the ethanol solution. Care must be taken so that all traces of the disinfectant are removed before entering the next aquatic habitat.

12. Any small mammal burrows found within the project site that could be disturbed by project activities will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.

13. Previously disturbed areas will be used for equipment and vehicle parking, staging, and storage areas. Work will occur only in defined areas.

14. Pets will not be allowed on the construction site.

15. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas.

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 5

16. To control erosion during and after project implementation best management practices will be implemented as identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

17. Cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles will occur only within designated staging areas. All equipment and vehicles will be checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.

1$. During construction, all project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to project sites will be cleaned up immediately. A plan that allows for a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills will also be prepared. Spill prevention and clean-up materials will be on site at all times during construction.

19. During construction, any standing water will be removed at the end of each day to avoid attracting California tiger salamander or California red-legged frog individuals to the project site.

20. A Service-approved biologist will ensure that the spread or introduction of invasive exotic plant species will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project areas will be removed.

21. Prior to construction, heavy equipment and other machinery will be cleaned and inspected for the presence of undesirable species prior to onsite use to reduce the risk of introducing exotic plant species into the project site.

22. The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity will be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goal. Routes and boundaries will be clearly demarcated, and these areas will be outside of riparian and wetland areas.

23. Project construction activities will occur outside the winter rainy season (i.e. November to May) to reduce impacts on dispersing California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs. Additionally, after rain events totaling greater than 0.5 inch of rain during project construction, all vehicles operated within all project areas must be inspected prior to work for California tiger salamanders or California red-legged frogs that may have taken refuge underneath.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY DETERMiNATION

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. “Jeopardize the continued existence of’ means “to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 6 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).

The jeopardy analysis in this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of the Species, which describes the range-wide condition of the California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog, the factors responsible for that condition, and their survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes the condition of these species in the action area, the factors responsible for those conditions, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of these species; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on these species; and (4) the Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area on these species.

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the current status of California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of these species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, and distribution of these species.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ADVERSE MODIFICATION DETERMINATION

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. A final rule revising the definition of “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat” was published on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214). The revised definition states: “Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features.”

The revised “destruction or adverse modification” definition focuses on how Federal actions affect the quantity and quality of the physical or biological features’ in the designated critical habitat for a listed species and, especially in the case of unoccupied habitat, on any impacts to the critical habitat itself. Specifically, the Service will generally conclude that a Federal action is likely to “destroy or adversely modify” designated critical habitat if the action results in an alteration of the quantity or quality of the essential physical or biological features of designated critical habitat, or that precludes or significantly delays the capacity of that habitat to develop

‘The critical habitat rule for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander uses the term “primary constituent elements” (PCEs) to describe the “physical or biological features” (PBfs) as used in the revised definition of “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.” For this biological opinion, PCEs and PBfs are considered synonymous.

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 7 those features over time, and if the effect of the alteration is to appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for the conservation of the species.

The Service may consider other kinds of impacts to designated critical habitat. For example, some areas that are currently in a degraded condition may have been designated as critical habitat for their potential to develop or improve and eventually provide the needed ecological functions to support species’ recovery. Under these circumstances, the Service generally concludes that an action is likely to “destroy or adversely modify” the designated critical habitat if the action alters it to prevent it from improving over time relative to its pre-action condition.

The “destruction or adverse modification” definition applies to all physical or biological features;

as described in the proposed revision to the current definition of “physical or biological features” (50 CFR 424.12), “[f]eatures may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions” (79 FR 27066).

The adverse modification analysis in this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) the Status of Critical Habitat, which describes the range-wide condition of designated critical habitat for Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander in terms of the essential physical or biological features, the factors responsible for that condition, and the intended recovery function of the critical habitat overall; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes the condition of the critical habitat in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the recovery role of the critical habitat in the action area; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated and interdependent activities on the essential physical and biological features and how that will influence the recovery role of the affected critical habitat units; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future non-Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area, on the essential physical and biological features and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND ITS CRITICAL HABITAT

California Tiger Salamander

The California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County was emergency listed as endangered on January 19, 2000 (65 Federal Register (FR) 3096). On September 21, 2000, the Service listed the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander as endangered (65 FR 57242). Critical habitat for the Santa Barbara DPS of the California tiger salamander was designated on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68568).

On May 23, 2003, the Service published a proposed rule to list the Central California population of California tiger salamander and to reclassify the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County populations from endangered to threatened (68 FR 28648). A final rule listing the California tiger salamander as a single threatened species rangewide was published on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47212). As a result of that action, California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County were listed as threatened and no longer considered to represent a distinct population segment.

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 8

Concurrently the Service promulgated a special rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act exempting from the Act’s prohibitions take of California tiger salamanders as a result of “routine ranching activities.” However, on August 19, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Center For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No.

C04-04324 WHA, held that the reclassification of the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County populations from endangered to threatened was arbitrary and capricious and should be vacated and remanded to the Service. Under this ruling, California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County currently remain individually listed as a DP$ classified as endangered. Additionally, the 4(d) rule (which can apply only to threatened species) does not apply to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.

The California tiger salamander is a large, stocky, terrestrial salamander with a broad, rounded snout. Adults may reach a total length of 8.2 inches, with males generally averaging about 8 inches and females averaging 6.8 inches. For both sexes, the average snout-to-vent length is approximately 3.6 inches. The small eyes have black irises and protrude from the head.

Coloration consists of white or pale yellow spots or bars on a black background on the back and sides and a yellow belly. Males can be distinguished from females, especially during the breeding season, by their swollen cloacae (a common chamber into which the intestinal, urinary, and reproductive canals discharge), more developed tail fins, and larger overall size (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996).

Thniiuh C’iUfnmi ticypr cnenil mn’t nfthir livi in iindrcriind l-h11rrr1X17Q ii, iiilorrl habitats, their reproduction is tied to aquatic habitat. Historically, they bred primarily in natural vernal pools, but they have been able to breed successfully in human-made stock ponds created for ranching and agricultural purposes. Migrations to and from breeding ponds occur during the rainy season (November to May), with the greatest activity from December to February (Storer 1925; Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham et al. 2000). Breeding migrations are strongly associated with rainfall events (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham et al. 2000). Breeding may occur in one major bout or during a prolonged period of several months, depending on the rainfall pattern (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham et al. 2000).

Lifetime reproductive success for other tiger salamander species is typically low, with fewer than 30 metamorphic juveniles per breeding female. Trenham et al. (2000) found even lower estimates for lifetime reproductive success for California tiger salamanders with roughly 12 lifetime metamorphic offspring per breeding female. In part, this low reproductive success is due to the time it takes for California tiger salamanders to reach sexual maturity; most do not breed until 4 or 5 years of age. Additionally, females may skip breeding opportunities in years with later rainfall (Trenham et al. 2000). While individuals may survive for more than 10 years, fewer than 50 percent survive to breed more than once (Trenham et al. 2000). Combined with low survivorship of metamorphosed individuals (in some populations, less than 5 percent of marked juveniles survive to become breeding adults (Trenham et al. 2000) and reproductive output in most years is not sufficient to maintain populations. These observations suggest that the species requires occasional “boom” breeding events to prevent extirpation (temporary or permanent loss of the species from a particular habitat) or extinction (Trenham et al. 2000).

Nam Nguyen (201 6-f-0275) 9

With such low recruitment, isolated subpopulations can decline greatly as a result of stochastic natural events as well as anthropogenic factors that reduce breeding success and individual survival.

Movements made by California tiger salamanders can be grouped into two main categories:

breeding migration and interpond dispersal. Breeding migration is the movement of California tiger salamanders to and from a pond from the surrounding upland habitat. Afier metamorphosis, juveniles move away from breeding ponds into the surrounding uplands, where they live for several years (on average, 4 years). Upon reaching sexual maturity, most individuals return to their natal/birth pond to breed, while 20 percent disperse to other ponds (Trenham et a!. 2001). following breeding, adult California tiger salamanders return to upland habitats, where they may live for 1 or more years before breeding again (Trenham et al. 2000).

California tiger salamanders are known to travel large distances from breeding ponds into upland habitats. They have been recorded up to 1.3 miles from breeding ponds (Sweet, pers. comm.

199$). California tiger salamanders are known to travel between breeding ponds; one study found that 20 to 25 percent of the individuals captured at one pond were recaptured later at ponds approximately 1,900 and 2,200 feet away (Trenham eta!. 2001). Trenham (2001) and Trenham and Shaffer (2005) estimated that 95 percent of a California tiger salamander population is located within 2,200 feet of a breeding pond.

Evidence suggests that juvenile California tiger salamanders disperse further into upland habitats than adults. A trapping study conducted in Solano County during winter 2002 through 2003 found that juveniles used upland habitats farther from breeding ponds than adults (Tretham and Shaffer 2005). More juvenile salamanders were captured at distances of 32$, 656, and 1,312 feet from a breeding pond than at 164 feet. Large numbers (approximately 20 percent of total captures) were found 1,312 feet from a breeding pond.

Trapping efforts in 2003 through 2004 detected juvenile California tiger salamanders at even farther distances, with a large proportion of the total salamanders caught at 2,297 feet from the breeding pond. Most juveniles captured, even those at 2,297 feet, were still moving away from ponds (Fitzpatrick, pers. comm. 2004). These data show that many California tiger salamanders travel far while still in the juvenile stage. Post-breeding movements away from breeding ponds by adults appear to be much smaller. During post-breeding emigration, radio-equipped adult California tiger salamanders were tracked to burrows between 62 and $13 feet from their breeding ponds (Trenham 2001). These reduced movements may be due to adult California tiger salamanders having depleted physical reserves following breeding.

The spatial distribution of California tiger salamanders in the uplands surrounding breeding ponds is a key issue for conservation planning. Although logic would suggest that California tiger salamanders will move only short distances if abundant burrows are found near their ponds, this is not the case. In the aforementioned study in Solano County, while abundant burrows were available near the pond, a nearly equal number of California tiger salamanders were captured at 32$, 656, and 1,312 feet from the breeding pond (Trenham and Shaffer 2005). Similarly, Trenham (2001) tracked salamanders to burrows up to $13 feet from a breeding pond, although

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 10 burrows were abundant at distances nearer to the pond. In addition, rather than staying in a single burrow, most individuals used several successive burrows at increasing distances from the pond.

The primary cause of the decline of the California tiger salamander is the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat due to human activities. Several other factors, including competition from introduced species, disturbance due to oil production, and over-grazing may have negative effects on California tiger salamanders and their aquatic and upland habitats. Non-native or introduced predators of California tiger salamanders include bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), Louisiana red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkil), catfish (Ictalurus sp.), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas) and other introduced fish (Shaffer et al. 1993, Gamradt and Kats 1996, Anderson 1968, Morey and Guinn 1992).

Various nonnative subspecies of the tiger salamander within the Ambystoma tigrinum species complex have been imported into California for use as fish bait. These introduced salamanders may out-compete the California tiger salamanders. Introduced tiger salamander species can have negative effects on California tiger salamander populations through hybridization (Shaffer et al.

1993), and introduced salamanders may interbreed with the natives to create hybrids. Riley et al.

(2003) have shown that the hybrids are able to breed with California tiger salamanders, resulting in the loss of pure native salamanders (i.e., genetic loss). Hybridization between native California tiger salamanders and non-native salamanders has been documented within the range of the Santa Barbara County DP$ (Ryan et aL 2009). In addition, non-native tiger salamanders and hybrids pose a direct predation threat to California tiger salamanders and other native species in pond ecosystems (Ryan et al. 2009).

A deformity-causing infection, caused by a trematode parasite (Ribeiroia ondatrae), possibly in the presence of other factors, has affected pond-breeding amphibians at known California tiger salamander breeding sites (Johnson et al. 2001, 2002). This same infection has become widespread among amphibian populations in Minnesota and poses the threat of becoming widespread in California.

Reduction of ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) populations to low levels through widespread rodent control programs may reduce availability of burrows and adversely affect the California tiger salamander. Poison typically used on ground squirrels is likely to have a disproportionately adverse effect on California tiger salamanders, which are smaller than the target species and have permeable skins. Use of pesticides, such as methoprene, in mosquito abatement may have an indirect adverse effect on the California tiger salamander by reducing the availability of prey. Automobiles and off-road vehicles can kill migrating California tiger salamanders, and contaminated runoff from roads, highways and agriculture can degrade California tiger salamander breeding habitat.

In particular, the Santa Barbara County DPS is currently known from approximately 60 extant breeding ponds in northern Santa Barbara County geographically arranged as six metapopulations. Specifically, California tiger salamanders within this DPS inhabit low

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 11 elevation vernal pools and seasonal ponds and associated grassland, oak savannah, and coastal scrub plant communities of the Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita valleys. The most important threat to the continued survival of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander is the loss and fragmentation of habitat. Federal, State, and local laws have not been sufficient to prevent past and ongoing losses of California tiger salamander habitat. Urban development and agricultural conversion continue to threaten the species. All but one metapopulation is under threat of development or agricultural conversion. Three of six metapopulations face ongoing and future threats from agricultural conversion and/or urban development. Some of these conversions do not require Santa Barbara County permits and thus may not consider impacts to California tiger salamanders or their habitat.

Draft Recovery Plan for the California Tiger Salamander

A final recovery plan for the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander DPS has not yet been published; however, a draft recovery plan has been prepared (Service 2015). According to the draft recovery plan, the Santa Barbara County DP$ of California tiger salamander is a species that has a high potential for recovery, and threats to this species are high in magnitude and imminent. The draft recovery plan for the Santa Barbara County DP$ of the California tiger salamander states that the goal of recovery efforts is to reduce threats and to ensure its long-term viability in the wild, and allow for its removal from the list of threatened and endangered species.

The interim goal is to recover the population to the point that it can be downlisted from endangered to threatened status. The recovery objectives of the plan are: (1) Protect and manage sufficient habitat within the metapopulation areas to support long-term viability of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander; and (2) Reduce or remove other threats to the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander. This DPS will be considered for delisting when:

1. At least four functional breeding ponds are in fully preserved status per metapopulation area.

2. A minimum of 623 acres (252 hectares) of functional upland habitat around each preserved pond is in fully preserved status.

3. Adjacent to the fully preserved ponds and fully preserved upland habitat, a minimum of 1,628 acres (659 hectares) of additional contiguous, functional upland habitat is present, which is at least 50 percent unfragmented and partially preserved.

4. Effective population size (Ne) in the metapopulation is, on average, increasing for 10 years.

5. Management is implemented to maintain the preserved ponds free of non-native predators and competitors (e.g.. bullfrogs and fish).

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 12

6. Risk of introduction and spread of non-native genotypes is reduced to a level that does not inhibit normal recruitment and protects genetic diversity within and among metapopulations.

7. The effects of vehicle-strike mortality have been minimized to a level that does not threaten viability and protects connectivity within metapopulations, including providing means for effective migration and dispersal in a roadway-impacted landscape.

The drafl recovery plan describes a strategy for delisting, which includes the following actions:

(1) Protect and manage habitats for the Santa Barbara County DPS; (2) Restore and maintain habitats for the Santa Barbara County DPS, and reduce vehicle-strike mortalities and barriers to dispersal from roads; (3) Reduce and remove threats from non-native species; (4) Prevent and reduce the potential for the transmission of disease; (5) Conduct research on threats to the Santa Barbara County DPS; (6) Support the development and implementation of management and monitoring plans; and (7) Conduct public education and outreach programs.

California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat

On November 24, 2004, the Service designated critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County population of California tiger salamander in six disparate areas of Santa Barbara County (69 FR 68568). The locations of these areas are not directly analogous to the locations of the six metapopulations described above.

A total of 11,180 acres in six separate units are designated as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County. Per the final critical habitat designation, the physical or biological features (PBFs) within the defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species include:

1) Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life cycle;

2) Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows. Small mammals are essential in creating the underground habitat that adult California tiger salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation;

and

3) Upland areas between breeding locations (PBf 1) and areas with small mammal burrows (PBF 2) that allow for dispersal among such sites (69 FR 6858).

The proposed project is located in Unit 1 (Western Santa Maria’Orcutt) of these six designated units. Unit 1 consists of 4,135 acres west and southwest of the city of Santa Maria, mostly in unincorporated areas of the County and the community of Orcutt. This area encompasses the known California tiger salamander breeding sites extending from the Casmalia Hills on the south

Nam Nguyen (2016-f-0275) 13 to the Santa Maria Airport on the north and from west of Black Road eastward to Highway 135.

Unit 1 makes up 26 percent of the total area identified in the final critical habitat rule as containing the PBFs for the species and as being essential to the conservation of the species in Santa Barbara County. The unit contains 12 known California tiger salamander breeding ponds and several water bodies that are suitable for California tiger salamander breeding that have not been surveyed. The 12 known breeding ponds in this unit constitute approximately 26 percent of the known breeding ponds (46) in Santa Barbara County. Of even greater significance, Unit 1 contains 7 (approximately 37 percent) of the 19 known natural vernal ponds that occur in Santa Barbara County. These natural ponds occur on the Orcutt Dune Sheet, which contains soils that are unique to the Santa Maria Valley. The Orcutt Dune Sheet is an ancient, windblown sand deposit that covers the southern one-half to two-thirds of the Santa Maria Valley (Hunt 1993).

All natural California tiger salamander breeding sites occurring on the sheet are classified as dunal or deflation pools and ponds, a type of California tiger salamander breeding pond occurring only within the two units within the Santa Maria Valley. The five remaining known ponds occur along the base of the Casmalia Hills, just off the southwestern edge of the Orcutt Dune Sheet.

California Red-legged Frog

The California red-legged frog was federally listed as threatened on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813). The Service completed a recovery plan for the species in 2002 (Service 2002). Critical habitat for the California red-legged frog was finalized on March 17, 2010 (75 FR 12816) after multiple revisions. No critical habitat has been designated for the California red-legged frog at the Santa Maria Airport. Detailed information on the biology of California red-legged frogs can be found in Storer (1925), Stebbins (2003), and Jennings et al. (1992). This species is the largest native frog in the western United States, ranging from 1.5 to 5.1 inches long. The abdomen and hind legs of adults are often red or salmon pink; the back is characterized by small black flecks and larger irregular dark blotches with indistinct outlines on a brown, gray, olive, or reddish background color. Dorsal spots usually have light centers, and dorsolateral folds are prominent on the back. Larvae range from 0.6 to 3.1 inches long and are dark brown and yellow with dark spots.

The diet of California red-legged frogs is highly variable. Larvae eat algae and a variety of organic detritus (Jennings et al. 1992). Hayes and Tennant (1925) found invertebrates to be the most common food item of adults. feeding activity probably occurs along the shoreline and on the surface of the water. Hayes and Tennant (1985) also found juveniles to be active diurnally and nocturnally, whereas adults were largely nocturnal.

California red-legged frogs breed from November through March; earlier breeding has been recorded in southern localities (Storer 1925). Males appear at breeding sites from 2 to 4 weeks before females (Storer 1925). California red-legged frogs are often prolific breeders, typically laying their eggs during or shortly after large rainfall events in late winter and early spring.

Nam Nguyen (2016-F-0275) 14

Female California red-legged frogs deposit egg masses on emergent vegetation so that the masses float on the surface of the water (Hayes and Miyamoto 1984). Egg masses contain about 2,000 to 5,000 moderately- sized (0.0$ to 0.11 inch) in diameter, dark reddish brown eggs (Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1985). Eggs hatch in 6 to 14 days (Storer 1925). Larvae undergo metamorphosis between 3.5 to 7 months after hatching (Storer 1925, Wright and Wright 1949).

Sexual maturity can be attained at 2 years of age by males and 3 years of age by females and is usually reached at 3 to 4 years of age (Jennings and Hayes 1985); adults may live $ to 10 years (Jennings et al. 1992) although the average life span is considered to be much lower.

California red-legged frogs spend most of their lives in and near sheltered backwaters of ponds, marshes, springs, streams, and reservoirs. Deep pools with dense stands of overhanging willows and an intermixed fringe of cattails are considered optimal habitat. However, California red-legged frogs can breed in many aquatic habitats. Eggs, larvae, transformed juveniles, and adults also have been found in ephemeral creeks and drainages and in ponds that do not have riparian vegetation. California red-legged frogs frequently breed in artificial impoundments such as stock ponds, if conditions are appropriate. Although California red-legged frogs successfully breed in streams and riparian systems, high seasonal flows and cold temperatures in streams often make these sites risky environments for eggs and larvae.

The importance of riparian vegetation for this species is not well understood. When riparian vegetation is present, California red-legged frogs spend considerable time resting and feeding in it; the moisture and camouflage provided by the riparian plant community likely provide good foraging habitat and may facilitate dispersal in addition to providing pools and backwater aquatic areas for breeding. Accessibility to sheltering habitat is essential for the survival of California red-legged frogs within a watershed, and can be a factor limiting population numbers and distribution.

Juvenile and adult California red-legged frogs may disperse long distances from breeding sites throughout the year. They can be encountered living within streams at distances exceeding 1.8 miles from the nearest breeding site, and have been found up to 400 feet from water in adjacent dense riparian vegetation (Bulger et al. 2003). Some California red-legged frogs have moved long distances over land between water sources during winter rains. Adult California red-legged frogs have been documented to move more than 2 miles in northern Santa Cruz County “without apparent regard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors” (Bulger et al. 2003). Most of these overland movements occur at night. These individual California red-legged frogs were observed to make long-distance movements that are straight-line, point to point migrations over variable upland terrain rather than using riparian corridors for movement between habitats, For the California red-legged frog, suitable habitat is considered to include all aquatic and riparian areas within the range of the species and includes any landscape features that provide cover and moisture (61 FR 25813). California red-legged frogs exhibit strong site fidelity, traveling over 1 mile of steep terrain to return to a pooi from where they were translocated (AECOM 2011).

The historical range of the California red-legged frog extended coastally from southern Mendocino County and inland from the vicinity of Redding, California, southward to

Nam Nguyen (2016-f-0275) 15 northwestern Baja California, Mexico (Jennings and Hayes 1985, Storer 1925). California red-legged frogs have been found at elevations that range from sea level to about 5,000 feet (61 FR 25813). The California red-legged frog has been extirpated or nearly extirpated from 70 percent of its former range. Historically, this species was found throughout the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. In the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California red-legged frogs typically occur below 4,000 feet in elevation (61 FR 25813). At present, California red-legged frogs are known to occur in 243 streams or drainages in 22 counties, primarily in central coastal California. Four additional occurrences have been recorded in the Sierra Nevada foothills since listing, bringing the total to five extant populations, compared to approximately 26 historical records in that area (61 FR 25813). Currently, California red-legged frogs are known from three disjunct regions in 26 California counties and one region in Baja California, Mexico (Grismer 2002, Fidenci 2004, Smith and Krofta 2005).

The most secure aggregations of California red-legged frogs are found in aquatic sites that support substantial riparian and aquatic vegetation and lack non-native predators. Over-harvesting, habitat loss, non-native species introduction, and urban encroachment are the primary factors that have negatively affected the California red-legged frog throughout its range (Jennings and Hayes 1985, Hayes and Jennings 1988). Habitat loss and degradation, combined with over-exploitation and introduction of exotic predators, were important factors in the decline of the California red-legged frog in the early to mid-1900s. Continuing threats to the California red-legged frog include direct habitat loss due to stream alteration and loss of aquatic habitat, indirect effects of expanding urbanization, competition or predation from non-native species including the bullfrog, catfish, bass (Micropterus spp.), mosquitofish, red swamp crayfish, and signal crayfish (Pacfastacus leniusculus). Chytrid fungus (Batrachochyfrium dendrobatidis) is a waterborne fungus that can decimate amphibian populations, and is considered a threat to California red-legged frog populations.

Although the presence of California red-legged frogs is correlated with still water deeper than approximately 1.6 feet, riparian shrubbery, and emergent vegetation (Jennings and Hayes 1925), there are numerous locations in the species’ historical range where these elements are well represented yet California red-legged frogs appear to be absent. The cause of local extirpations does not appear to be restricted solely to loss of aquatic habitat. The most likely causes of local extirpation are thought to be changes in faunal composition of aquatic ecosystems (i.e., the introduction of non-native predators and competitors) and landscape-scale disturbances that disrupt California red-legged frog population processes, such as dispersal and colonization. The introduction of contaminants or changes in water temperature may also play a role in local extirpations. These changes may also promote the spread of predators, competitors, parasites, and diseases.

Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog

The 2002 final recovery plan for the California red-legged frog states that the goal of recovery efforts is to reduce threats and improve the population status of the California red-legged frog sufficiently to warrant delisting. This species will be considered for delisting when:

Nam Nguyen (2016-f-0275) 16

1. Suitable habitats within all core areas are protected and/or managed for California red-legged frogs in perpetuity, and the ecological integrity of these areas is not threatened by adverse anthropogenic habitat modification (including indirect effects of upstream/downstream land uses);

2. Existing populations, throughout the range, are stable (i.e., reproductive rates allow for long term viability without human intervention). Population status will be documented through establishment and implementation of a scientifically acceptable population monitoring program for at least a 15-year period, which is approximately 4 to 5 generations of the California red-legged frog. This 15-year period will preferably include an average precipitation cycle. An average precipitation cycle is a period when annual rainfall includes average to 35 percent above-average through greater than 35 percent below-average and back to average or greater. The direction of change is unimportant in this criterion;

3. Populations are geographically distributed in a manner that allows for the continued existence of viable metapopulations despite fluctuations in the status of individual populations (i.e. when populations are stable or increasing at each core area);

4. The species is successfully reestablished in portions of its historical range such that at least one reestablished population is stable/increasing at each core area where California red-legged frog are currently absent; and

5. The amount of additional habitat needed for population connectivity, recolonization, and dispersal has been determined, protected, and managed for California red-legged frogs.

The recovery plan describes a strategy for delisting, which includes the following actions: (1) Protect known populations and reestablish populations; (2) Protect suitable habitat, corridors, and core areas; (3) Develop and implement…