FIO_17B0064-19F0131_USFWS Final BO_BRF_BPS_s20190801_sas.pdf

In Reply Refer to:

FWS-SDG-17B0064-19F0131

August 1, 2019 Sent by Email

Mr. Joseph Zidron Real Estate and Environmental Branch Chief Border Patrol & Air and Marine PMO U.S. Customs and Border Protection 24000 Avila Road, Suite 5020 Laguna Niguel, California 92677

Attention: John Petrilla

Subject: Section 7 Consultation for Brown Field Border Patrol Station Project, San Diego County, California

Dear Mr. Zidron:

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Brown Field Border Patrol Station Project (BPS or project) and its potential effects on the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; quino), in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We initiated consultation on May 1, 2019, which is the day we received your request for consultation.

Based on conservation measures committed to by the CBP (Appendix), we concur with CBP’s determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher) and the federally endangered arroyo toad {a. southwestern t. [Anaxyrus californicus (Bufo microscaphus c.)];

arroyo toad}, least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher), Otay tarplant [Deinandra conjugens (Hemizonia c.);

tarplant], San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia; thornmint), and California condor (Gymnogyps californianus; condor). Therefore, these species are not addressed in this biological opinion.

The CBP determined that the project will not affect the federally threatened spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) or the federally endangered Encinitas baccharis (Baccharis vanessae), Mexican flannelbush (Fremontodendron mexicanum), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), and San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis). Therefore, these species are not addressed in this biological opinion.

This consultation is based on information provided in: (1) your August 8, 2018, letter and May 1, 2019, email requests for consultation; (2) the Revised Final Biological Survey Report Brown

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 2

Field Border Patrol Station Site Dulzura, CA (HDR 2018); (3) the Results of Focused Surveys for the Hermes Copper, Quino Checkerspot, Arroyo Toad, and California Gnatcatcher on the Brown Field United States Customs and Border Protection Station Project Site, Dulzura, San Diego County, California (LBC 2017); (4) the Results of Focused Surveys in the Impacts Areas and Enhancement Areas for Host Plants of Quino Checkerspot Butterfly on the Brown Field Border Patrol Station near Dulzura, San Diego County, California (GSRC 2019); and (5) other sources of information including survey reports, technical reviews, and email correspondence.

A complete project file addressing this consultation is maintained at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

CONSULTATION HISTORY

Early coordination between the CBP and the Service occurred on the project. The following chronology reflects a summary of significant events:

1. On December 2, 2016, the Service learned about the project from an email that included a preliminary biological resources report for, and figure of, the project.

2. On August 8, 2018, the CBP requested our concurrence on their not likely to adversely affect determination for the project.

3. On August 23, 2018, we replied in an email to the CBP’s request and asked for additional information to complete consultation.

4. On September 19, 2018, the CBP provided the information requested by the Service.

5. On September 21, 2018, we attended a site visit with the CBP.

6. On October 4, 2018, the Service sent an email to the CBP asking if it would be possible to relocate the proposed helipad and reduce parking lot to avoid impacts to coastal sage scrub.

7. On October 5, 2018, the CBP sent an email to the Service stating that the helipad could not be relocated based on prevailing winds, and meeting FAA requirements for approach and departure, and that parking could not be further reduced.

8. On November 15, 2018, the Service sent an email to the CBP with draft conservation measures.

9. On November 30, 2018, the CBP sent an email to the Service with edits to the draft conservation measures.

10. On February 28, 2019, the Service sent an email to the CBP asking if updated Quino surveys for 2019 could be completed.

11. On March 26, 2019, the CBP sent an email to the Service with the draft restoration plan.

12. On April 9, 2019, the Service sent an email to the CBP with draft conservation measures.

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 3

13. On April 18, 2019, the CBP sent an email to the Service with edits to the draft conservation measures.

14. On May 1, 2019, the CBP requested initiation of formal consultation for the Quino.

15. On May 20, 2019, the CBP sent an email with updated Quino survey results for 2019.

16. On July 1, 2019, the Service sent an email to the CBP requesting that one of the access roads to the backup leach field be eliminated.

17. On July 3, 2019, the CBP sent an email stating that the access road on the west side of the backup leach field could be eliminated.

18. On July16, 2019, a draft project description, including conservation measures, was provided to CBP for their review and comment.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The project includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of the BPS on a 125.2-acre property at the intersection of State Route (SR) 94 and Campbell Ranch Road in Dulzura, San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The project includes the construction of a main BPS building, a detention area, a two-lane bus sally port, a vehicle maintenance/all-terrain vehicle storage facility, a maintenance work area/shop and warehouse space, two exterior tactical support areas, and a 632-vehicle parking lot. The project also includes a water supply facility with a water well, a pump house with potable water treatment system and three tanks for potable water and fire protection, a vehicle wash rack with sediment traps, and a covered fuel island. All vegetation within the interstitial areas between the buildings and areas around the BPS and pump house will be removed and replaced by gravel and/or boulders. No landscaping will be planted except for 12 ornamental trees on the west side of the main BPS building.

Other components of the BPS include a communications tower; a helipad with controlled lighting and a fuel point; site security including a perimeter fence, gates, lighting, surveillance and access control; and a storm water management system consisting of storm water collection and transfer infrastructure (inlets, pipes, culverts), a 14-foot wide concrete channel for stormwater conveyance along the perimeter fence on the east side, and a detention basin along the west side of the BPS.

The project also includes a 0.96-acre primary leach field, a 50 foot x 190-foot (0.23-acre) dirt access road, and a 1.1-acre backup leach field. About 29,000 cubic feet of excess soils from project grading will be deposited up to 7 feet high in a 2.9-acre stockpile north of the backup leach field. The leach fields and stockpile will be restored to native vegetation. Vegetation in the leach fields will be low-density and limited to forbs and grasses, while vegetation on the stockpile will include shrubs. The project will construct a 120-foot by 94-foot (0.26-acre) culverted access driveway from Campbell Ranch Road to the backup leach field and stockpile.

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 4

Figure 1. Project Components and Disturbance Area

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 5

Road improvements along SR 94 include constructing an acceleration/deceleration lane on westbound SR 94 and a dedicated left turn lane on eastbound SR 94. A majority of the work along SR 94 will occur within the Caltrans right of way. Additionally, approximately 1,500 linear feet of the dirt Campbell Ranch Road within the BPS site will be paved with asphalt/concrete.

All staging will occur within previously disturbed agricultural areas, the project footprint, and/or Campbell Ranch Road. Construction equipment will include bulldozers, graders, water trucks, rollers, loaders, backhoes, jackhammers, concrete mixers, generators, pile drivers, cranes, and pavers. Project construction is expected to occur from Spring 2020 to Spring 2022.

Maintenance of the BPS could include routine upgrade, repair, and maintenance of the buildings, parking area, grounds, or other facilities. Operation and maintenance of the leach fields will include routine access and inspection by foot or vehicle and removing or trimming vegetation and roots. The backup leach field will not be subject to any operation and maintenance activities when not in use.

Appropriate best management practices will be implemented to address erosion and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be developed for long-term management of the stockpile.

The project will impact a total of 29.95 acres (19.73 permanent and 10.22 acres temporary) of undeveloped areas (Figure 1, Table 1). Several patches of the Quino host plant, California plantain (Plantago erecta), occur within the disturbance area. The CBP will offset permanent impacts by restoring 7.88 acres of higher quality Quino habitat, and all 10.22 acres of temporary impacts will also be restored to higher quality Quino habitat (18.1 acres total). The CBP will also control invasive species on 5.49 acres on site and conserve/manage the remaining 89.15-acre undeveloped portion of the property (Figure 2).

Table 1 Disturbance Area for the Proposed Action Impact Type Vegetation Community Impacts (acres) Temporary Impacts Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 4.66 Field/Pasture 5.56 Temporary Impacts Total 10.22 Permanent Impacts* Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 2.03 Disturbed Habitat 0.70 Field/Pasture 16.92 Flat-topped Buckwheat 0.08 Permanent Impacts Total 19.73 Total Project Impacts 29.95

*includes about 0.17 acre of California plantain patches

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 6

Figure 2. Project Restoration and Invasives Species Control

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 7

Conservation Measures

The following conservation measures will be implemented as part of the project to avoid, minimize, and offset adverse effects to Quino:

CM 1. The CBP will offset permanent impacts to 19.73 acres of potential Quino habitat by restoring 7.88 acres of Quino habitat (5.59 acres with shrubs, 2.29 acres low-density without shrubs), and all 10.22 acres of temporary impacts will also be restored to Quino habitat (8.74 acres with shrubs, 1.48 acres low-density without shrubs) (18.1 acres total). The CBP will also control invasive species on 5.49 acres on site and conserve/manage the remaining 89.15-acre undeveloped portion of the property.

CM 2. The CBP will temporarily fence the limits of the disturbance area, including construction staging areas and access routes, to prevent additional habitat impacts and install erosion control devices to prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats to be avoided. Erosion control devices, (e.g., fiber rolls and bonded fiber matrix) will be made from biodegradable materials such as jute, with no plastic mesh, to avoid creating a wildlife entanglement. Fencing and erosion control devices will be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. The CBP will submit to the Service for approval, at least 14 days prior to initiating project impacts, the final plans for initial clearing/grubbing of habitat and project construction. These final plans will include photographs that show the temporary fencing and erosion control devices. If work occurs beyond the fenced limits of impact, all work will cease until the problem has been remedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any habitat impacts that occur beyond the approved fenced will be offset at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporary fencing and erosion control devices will be removed upon project completion.

CM 3. Initial vegetation clearing/grubbing and project construction in the disturbance area, and/or future vegetation management in the leach fields, will occur outside the Quino reproduction season (February 15 to August 31). If these activities are necessary between February 15 and August 31, the CBP will conduct Quino and host plant surveys as outlined in 4.c. in the impact area within 1 week prior to impacts.

CM 4. The CBP will staff a Quino biologist1 who will be responsible for monitoring and reporting compliance with avoidance and minimization measures for biological resources during work activities addressed in the biological opinion. The Quino biologist will perform the following:

a. Be on site during all vegetation clearing/grubbing and project construction within 500 feet of habitat to be avoided;

1 The Quino biologist will have at least 2 years of experience working with all stages of Quino including adults, eggs, all larval instars, larval webbing, and pupae; and ability to identify Quino larval host and nectar plants in the field.

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 8

b. Oversee installation of and inspect the fencing and erosion control measures a minimum of once per week and daily during all rain events to ensure that any breaks in the fence or erosion control measures are repaired immediately;

c. Conduct Quino and host plant surveys in the impact area within 1 week prior to impacts. If found, host plants will be flagged and avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If host plants cannot be avoided, the Quino biologist will survey for Quino adults, larvae, and eggs within the impact area. The Quino biologist will salvage and/or relocate any Quino adults, larvae, and host plants containing eggs and larvae found in the impact area to a location supporting suitable Quino habitat that will not be impacted.

The Service will be notified of any Quino relocation within 24 hours following relocation.

d. Periodically monitor the work area to ensure that work activities do not generate excessive amounts of dust;

e. Train all contractors and construction personnel on the biological resources associated with this project and ensure that training is implemented by construction personnel. At a minimum, training will include: (i) the purpose for resource protection; (ii) a description of the sensitive species found on site and their habitat(s); (iii) the conservation measures that should be implemented during project construction to conserve sensitive species, including strictly limiting activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the disturbance area to avoid sensitive resource areas in the field (i.e., avoided areas delineated on maps or on the project site by fencing);

(iv) environmentally responsible construction practices as outlined in measure 7; (v) the protocol to resolve conflicts that may arise at any time during the construction process; (vi) the general provisions of the Act, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act, the penalties associated with violating the Act;

f. Halt work, if necessary, and confer with the Service to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures. The biologist will report any violation to the Service within 24 hours of its occurrence;

g. Submit weekly email reports (including photographs of impact areas) to the Service during vegetation clearing and/or project construction within 500 feet of avoided habitat. The weekly reports will document that authorized impacts were not exceeded, work did not occur within the 500 foot setback except as approved by the Service and general compliance with all conditions. The reports will also outline the duration of monitoring, the location of construction activities, the type of construction which occurred, and equipment used. These reports will specify numbers, locations, and sex of sensitive species observed and remedial measures

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 9 employed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to sensitive species.

Raw field notes should be available upon request by the Service; and

h. Submit a final report to the Service within 60 days of project completion that includes: as-built construction drawings with an overlay of habitat that was impacted and avoided, photographs of habitat areas that were to be avoided, and other relevant summary information documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and that general compliance with all conditions of this consultation was achieved.

CM 5. The CBP will submit final restoration plans to the Service for review and approval prior to initiating project impacts. These plans will be based on the Draft Brown Field Border Patrol Station Habitat Restoration Plan San Diego California. (March 2019). In addition to the measures proposed in the draft plan, the final plans will include the following information and conditions:

a. All final specifications and topographic-based grading, planting and irrigation plans. All habitat restoration sites will be prepared for planting by decompacting the top soil in a way that mimics natural habitat top soil to the maximum extent practicable while maintaining slope stability. Topsoil and plant materials salvaged from the habitat areas to be impacted will be transplanted to, and/or used as a seed/cutting source for, the habitat restoration areas to the maximum extent practicable as approved by the Service. Planting and irrigation will not be installed until the Service has approved of upland habitat restoration site grading. All planting will be installed in a way that mimics natural plant distribution, and not in rows.

Planting will include pockets of coastal sage scrub surrounded by more herbaceous annuals associated with Quino habitat;

b. Planting palettes (plant species, size and number/acre) and seed mix (plant species and pounds/acre). The plant palettes will include Quino host and nectar plants and other native annuals. The plant palette for the leach fields will not include Quino host plants. Seed will be collected from existing host and nectar plants on site by personnel familiar with Quino host and nectar plant species. Unless otherwise approved by the Service, only locally native species (no cultivars) obtained from as close to the project area as possible will be used. The source and proof of local origin of all plant material and seed will be provided;

c. Container plant survival will be 80 percent of the initial plantings for the first 5 years. At the first and second anniversary of plant installation, all dead plants will be replaced unless their function has been replaced by natural recruitment;

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 10

d. A final implementation schedule that indicates when all upland habitat impacts, as well as restoration/enhancement grading, planting and irrigation will begin and end. Upland habitat restoration/enhancement grading, planting and irrigation will be completed during the concurrent or next planting season (i.e., late fall to early spring) after finishing grading within the restoration/enhancement area. Any temporal loss of upland habitat caused by delays in restoration/enhancement will be offset through upland habitat restoration/enhancement at a 0.5:1 ratio for every 6 months of delay (i.e., 1:1 for 12 months delay, 1.5:1 for 18 months delay, etc.). In the event that the CBP is wholly or partly prevented from performing obligations under the final plans (causing temporal losses due to delays) because of unforeseeable circumstances or causes beyond their reasonable control, and without the fault or negligence of CBP, the CBP will be excused by such unforeseeable cause(s);

e. Restoration maintenance will be conducted outside the Quino reproduction season (February 15 to August 31). If maintenance is needed between February 15 and August 31, a Quino biologist will conduct host plants surveys within the maintenance area within 1 week prior to work. If found, host plants will be flagged and avoided.

f. Five years of success criteria for restoration areas including: a total of no more than 50 percent absolute cover of shrub species; evidence of natural recruitment of multiple species; 0 percent coverage for Cal-IPC List A and B species, and no more than 10 percent coverage for other exotic/weed species;

g. A qualitative and quantitative vegetation monitoring plan with a map of proposed sampling locations. Photo points will be used for qualitative monitoring and stratified-random sampling will be used for all quantitative;

h. Contingency measures in the event of restoration/enhancement failure; and

i. Annual mitigation maintenance and monitoring reports will be submitted to the Service after the maintenance and monitoring period and no later than December 1 of each year.

CM 6. Herbicides will be applied to landscape and/or Quino habitat restoration areas by certified applicators overseen by a Quino biologist as needed using the following guidelines:

a. A mixture of 2 percent glyphosate and 98 percent water with no surfactant will be used. Alternate herbicides or formulations may be used with Service approval;

b. A marking dye (e.g. Blazon® Blue or Tracer™) will be added to the spray solution to help ensure that the herbicide is applied only to target plants;

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 11

c. The herbicide solution will be sprayed through a wand that reaches down to the base of target plants where a small amount of the herbicide solution will be sprayed;

d. Herbicide treatments will be limited to periods of low wind to reduce spray drift (unintended dispersal of herbicide through currents of air). Herbicide will not be used if conditions become windy (maximum gusts of 7 miles per hour;

e. No herbicide will be applied within 10 feet of any Quino host plant;

CM 7. The CBP will ensure that the following conditions are implemented during project construction, operation and maintenance:

a. Employees will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the disturbance area;

b. The project site will be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items will be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site;

c. Pets of project personnel will not be allowed on the project site;

d. Impacts from fugitive dust during construction will be avoided and minimized through watering, limiting vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour, controlling vehicle access, and other appropriate measures;

e. Materials such as gravel, topsoil, or fill will be obtained from sources that are compatible with the proposed project site; are from legally permitted sites; and are certified weed free. Materials from undisturbed areas adjacent to the project site will not be used;

f. Vehicle refueling and maintenance will be limited to upland areas with established spill prevention equipment in place (e.g., straw wattles, lined or paved areas, areas with no direct drains);

g. Chemicals and hazardous materials will be stored in proper containers and within spill containment;

h. Spill clean-up kits and drip pans will be maintained during construction of the facility and retention basins will be large enough to capture and hold the chemicals being housed;

i. A 15-mile per hour speed limit on unpaved roads will be implemented to reduce vehicle-Quino collisions;

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 12

j. A fire prevention and suppression plan will be developed and implemented for all activities that require welding or otherwise have a risk of ignition (e.g., use of string trimmers, edgers or chainsaws);

k. A stormwater pollution prevention plan will be developed for long-term management of the stockpile; and

l. The CBP protocol for cleaning vehicles and equipment will be followed to avoid the spread of invasive species.

CM 8. The CBP will implement long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring for the 105.8-acre onsite conservation area. The CBP will submit a draft long-term management plan for the onsite conservation area to the Service for review and approval prior to initiating project impacts. The long-term management plan will include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) controlling invasive species;

(b) the estimated cost of long-term management of the onsite conservation area;

(c) proposed land manager’s name, qualifications, business address, and contact information; (d) method of protecting the resources in perpetuity (e.g., conservation easement), monitoring schedule, measures to prevent human and invasive species encroachment, funding mechanism, and contingency measures should problems occur; and (e) specify that no easements or activities (e.g., cattle grazing, fuel modification zones, public trails, drainage facilities, walls, maintenance access roads, utility easements) that will negatively impact the value of the onsite conservation area to listed species or result in soil disturbance and/or native vegetation removal will be allowed within the onsite conservation area. If the CBP determines that it is necessary to use the onsite conservation area in a manner that is inconsistent with the long-term management plan, then the CBP will reinitiate consultation with the Service.

Action Area

According to 50 CFR § 402.02 pursuant to section 7 of the Act, the “action area” includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. For this project, the action area includes the entire 126.15-acre project property.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES

The Service listed Quino as endangered on January 16, 1997 (Service 1997). This species is known from western Riverside County and San Diego County, and the number of known populations has increased since the time of listing. Based on our current methodology for identifying populations, 5 populations were known at listing, and more than 20 populations are known post-listing (Service 2009).

Quino is a subspecies of the Edith’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha). It differs from other subspecies by size, wing coloration, and larval and pupal phenotype. The Quino life cycle includes four distinct life stages: egg, larva (caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis), and adult. There is

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 13 usually one generation of adults per year, although larvae may remain in diapause for multiple years prior to maturation. Quino require an external heat source to increase their metabolic rate to levels needed for normal growth and behavior. Larvae seek microclimates with high solar exposure for basking in order to speed their growth rate. Also, like most butterflies, adults frequently bask and remain in sunny areas to increase their body temperature to the level required for normal active behavior (Service 2009). In addition, larval host plants for Quino are often associated with cryptogamic crusts (a thin organic crust composed of cyanobacteria, lichens, mosses, and fungi). Cryptogamic crusts also inhibit growth of nonnative plants (Service 2003). Cryptogamic crusts have become rare due to past and ongoing ground disturbance, such as grazing (Service 2003).

The status of Quino is described in the 5-year review for this species (Service 2009). The 5-year review recommends working with partners to help conserve the Quino checkerspot butterfly and initiate formal monitoring of all core habitat-based population distributions.

The Service issued a Quino recovery plan on August 11, 2003 (Service 2003), which identifies the Southwest San Diego Recovery Unit and 15 associated occurrence complexes. The recovery plan identifies high threats to this unit as habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation associated with development in the western areas. Remaining occupied habitat areas continue to be threatened by encroaching development and ongoing agriculture, grazing, road grading, and off-road vehicle and Border Patrol activities. These disturbances have also resulted in, and continue to exacerbate, nonnative plant invasion problems. The recovery plan’s Priority 1, Recommendation 1.5, for the Southeast San Diego Recovery Unit is to protect and manage as much as possible of the remaining undeveloped suitable and restorable habitat patches and dispersal areas within and between the occurrence complexes, especially through the critical core Otay Lakes/Rancho Jamul Occurrence Complex.

Please refer to the 5-year review, recovery plan, and critical habitat designation for more detailed information on life history requirements, threats, and conservation needs of this species.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR §402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have undergone section 7 consultation and the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress.

Project Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Uses

The 126.15-acre project currently supports 94.76 acres of coastal sage/flat-topped buckwheat scrub (scrub), 1.25 acres of oak riparian forest, 28.09 acres of field/pasture/grassland and

0.7 acres of disturbed. Until 2014, the field/pasture/grassland portions of the project site were plowed for agriculture. However, these lands have since become fallow, which has allowed mostly nonnative vegetation with some California plantain Quino host plants and a variety of other native annuals to grow in the previously plowed areas. SR 94 runs south of the project site, Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 14 and the area to the west consists of agriculture and development while areas to the east and north are primarily undeveloped. The project site was burned in 1982 in the Dulzura Fire and again in 2007 in the Harris Fire.

Status of the Quino within the Action Area

The project site in the Service’s recommended Quino survey area (Service 2002), which refers to areas that could potentially support Quino within the known range of the species and should be surveyed.

A habitat assessment in 2017 did not find Quino host or nectar plants in the disturbance area and the field/pasture/grassland areas in the disturbance area were excluded from subsequent surveys (LBC 2017). However, these surveys found 19 adult Quino, and Quino California plantain host and nectar plants, outside the disturbance area on the east and north portions of the project property (Figure 1). Additional vegetation surveys in 2019 found California plantain host plants and a variety of native annuals at several locations in the disturbance area (GSRC 2019). Purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta) and Chinese houses (Collinsia heterophylla) nectar plants were also found on the project site outside the disturbance area. The Quino and its host/nectar plants were found in a mosaic of open areas in the scrub habitat.

The Service identifies suitable habitat within 0.6 mile (estimated movement distance) from Quino occurrences as occupied habitat for the species in any given area (Service 2003). Given that Quino have been found in and near the action area, any part of the action area that falls inside the Service’s Recommended Survey Areas and meets one or more of the following criteria is potentially suitable for Quino: (1) is within 0.6 mile of a known Quino occurrence; or

(2) contains any known Quino habitat requirements (i.e., vegetation types, host plants, and nectar sources). The majority of the action area contains non-excluded habitat, all of which is within the

0.6 mile dispersal distance of Quino observed in 2017 (LBC 2017). Therefore, based on the Quino dispersal distance and the presence of Quino and its host and nectar plants, we consider the entire action area occupied by Quino.

The project site represents a Quino occurrence complex that was not known at the time of listing, or when the recovery plan was completed. Although not know at the time the recovery plan was completed, the project site is in the northeast edge of the Southwest San Diego Quino Recovery Unit and is immediately north of the Dulzura and east of the Honey Springs occurrence complexes in this unit.

Factors Affecting Species Environment within and Adjacent to the Action Area

Agricultural activities and access road construction/maintenance on the project site have likely impacted Quino and its habitat through soil compaction, native vegetation loss, and/or invasion by nonnative species. This has resulted in the overall constraining of suitable Quino habitat to the relatively undisturbed east and north potions of the property. However, the previous agricultural areas appear to be recovering.

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 15

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

Effects of the action refer to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated and interdependent with that action, which will be added to the environmental baseline. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action, are later in time, and still reasonably certain to occur.

Direct Effects

As summarized above, because Quino have been detected adjacent to the proposed disturbance area, and host plants have been observed in and adjacent to the disturbance area (Figure 1), the Service considers the action area occupied by Quino. The proposed action will impact a total of

29.95 acres (19.73 permanent and 10.22 acres temporary) of low quality Quino habitat (Table 1).

Loss of Quino habitat from the 2.9-acre proposed stockpile area are considered temporary because this area will be restored with a higher quality Quino habitat (including host and nectar plants) than the vegetation impacted and the stockpile will not be subject to maintenance.

The CBP will offset permanent impacts to 19.73 acres of Quino habitat by restoring 7.88 acres of higher quality Quino habitat on site (Figure 2), and all 10.22 acres of temporary impacts will also be restored to higher quality Quino habitat (18.1 acres total). Because moisture and chemicals in, and/or future maintenance of, the leach fields/access road could negatively impact Quino (especially eggs, larvae, pupae), the 2.29 acres of habitat restored in these areas will include Quino nectar plants but not host plants. The 1.48 acres of Quino habitat restored along the access road from SR 94 will also be low-density without shrubs to maintain visibility. The remaining

14.33 acres of Quino habitat restoration will include Quino host and nectar plants in a mosaic with scrub shrubs similar to the onsite habitat occupied by Quino. The CBP will also control invasive species on 5.49 acres on site, and conserve/manage the remaining 89.15-acre undeveloped portion of the property for Quino.

If initial vegetation clearing/grubbing and project construction in the disturbance area, and/or future vegetation management in the leach fields, occur during the Quino reproduction season (February 15 to August 31), Quino adults, eggs and/or pre- or post-diapause larvae may occur within these areas and be crushed, killed or injured by workers or equipment. Adults, if present, are mobile and may be able to avoid equipment and workers. Outside the reproduction season, diapausing larvae may occur within these areas (except in the leach fields after construction) and also be crushed or injured by project activities.

During construction of the project, Quino may also be impacted by fugitive dust. Dust may cover Quino eggs and larvae in the action area and could either kill them through smothering or by reducing (interrupting) their lifecycle. Elevated dust levels may also affect the ability of the larvae and adults to respire normally. Insects are known to be adversely affected by coatings of oil films, emulsions, or dust particles that clog the respiratory openings (spiracles) on their bodies (Storer et al. 1972). Excessive dust could also degrade the suitability of Quino habitat

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 16

(i.e., host plants and nectar plants) by disrupting/hindering plant growth (photosynthesis) and reducing availability to pollinators, which in turn could result in reduced reproduction of the plants, and decreasing the palatability of nectar plants to Quino larvae.

The CBP will implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts to Quino. The CBP will conduct initial vegetation clearing/grubbing and project construction in the disturbance area, and future vegetation management in the leach fields, outside the Quino reproduction season. If these activities are necessary during the reproduction season, a Quino biologist will conduct surveys for Quino host plants within the impact areas. If Quino host plants are found, the CBP will flag and avoid impacts to host plants to the maximum extent practicable.

If host plants cannot be avoided, a Quino biologist will conduct surveys for Quino adults, eggs and larvae within the impact areas. Any Quino adults, eggs and larvae found will be salvaged and/or relocated, along with any host plants supporting the eggs and larvae, to a location supporting suitable Quino habitat that will not be impacted. While injury or death of eggs, larvae, or adults may also occur as a result of capture, collection, and relocation activities, this potential impact will be minimized by the requirement that these activities be conducted by a Quino biologist.

The CBP will install temporary fencing around the disturbance area to prevent impacts to adjacent vegetation during construction. Once construction is complete, all temporary fencing will be removed and permanent fencing will be installed around the project facilities. Fugitive dust from construction activities will be minimized by watering exposed soil during ground-disturbing activities, limiting vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour, and other measures.

Determining the precise number of eggs and larvae that may be impacted by the project is not possible due to their small size and the difficulty in finding eggs and larvae. Likewise, predicting the number of adults that may be impacted is not possible due to seasonal and annual variations in Quino population numbers. Despite the inability to specifically identify the numbers subject to harm or mortality, we expect that the effects to individual Quino will be minimal with the avoidance and minimization measures described above.

We do not anticipate that the project will substantially obstruct Quino movement or fragment Quino habitat. The project will permanently impact 19.73 acres of low quality Quino habitat with only small and dispersed patches of host plants, which represent about 15.6 percent of the

126.15 acres of Quino habitat available on site and an even smaller percentage rangewide.

Permanent impacts will be offset by restoring 7.88 acres of low quality habitat to higher quality Quino habitat on site, and temporary impacts to 10.22 acres of low quality habitat will be restored to higher quality Quino habitat. While the project will result in a net loss of 11.85 acres of Quino habitat, the 18.1 acres of restored habitat is expected to better support Quino foraging and reproduction. The impact areas are surrounded by large areas of occupied Quino habitat, which include sufficient resources to sustain the onsite occurrence complex during and following project implementation. After successful completion of the restoration and invasive species control, and initiation of management of the conserved habitat, over the long-term we expect the project site will support more Quino than under baseline conditions. Thus, the loss of individual Quino and its habitat as a result of the project is not expected to result in an appreciable reduction in the numbers, reproduction, or distribution of Quino within the action area or rangewide.

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 17

Indirect Effects

The expansion of nonnative plants associated with the project could indirectly affect Quino by displacing their host and nectar plants (Service 2003). Quino may also be exposed to herbicides during landscape maintenance or habitat restoration. While no studies have been conducted to specifically evaluate toxicity of glyphosate to Quino, the available data suggest that herbicides containing glyphosate, such as Roundup Pro®, have very low toxicity to insects in general, and toxic effects have only been shown at much higher dosage levels than currently proposed (Giesy et al. 2000). Project activities (e.g., use of vehicles, string trimmers, or chainsaws) may also increase the chance for fires that may kill or displace Quino.

The CBP will implement significant measures to avoid and minimize these potential indirect effects to Quino. Other than 12 ornamental trees no vegetated landscaping will be installed and equipment will be cleaned to avoid the introduction of nonnative plants to the area. In addition, a 10-foot buffer will be maintained around occupied host plant patches while using herbicide in the habitat restoration area. To address the potential for fire, the CBP will develop and implement a fire prevention and suppression plan. With these measures, indirect effects are anticipated to be reduced to a level of insignificance.

Effect on Recovery

Although it is in the Southwestern San Diego Quino recovery unit, the recovery plan does not specifically address the project site because it was not a known occurrence complex when the recovery plan was completed. Regardless, because the project site is in the northeast edge of this recovery unit, project impacts will not contribute to the high threat of habitat impacts in the western portion, nor impact connectivity in the critical core Otay Lakes/Rancho Jamul Occurrence Complex, identified in the recovery plan.

The project is consistent with the recovery plan’s Priority 1 Recommendation 1.5 to protect and manage as much as possible of the remaining undeveloped suitable and restorable habitat patches and dispersal areas within and between the occurrence complexes. During the consultation period, the CBP minimized impacts to Quino habitat (e.g., removal of a secondary access road to the backup leach field). All 10.22 acres of temporary impacts and an additional 7.88 acres of currently low quality habitat (18.1 acres total) will be restored to higher quality Quino habitat.

With the proposed restoration, invasive species control and long-term management, the project site is expected to support more Quino than under baseline conditions. This will improve dispersal areas within the occurrence complex on the project site, and between it and the neighboring Dulzura and Honey Springs complexes. Therefore, we expect the project to support the recovery of Quino.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. We are unaware of

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 18 any future non-Federal actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area and may affect Quino.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of the Quino, the environmental baseline for the action area, effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Quino. We reached this conclusion by considering the following:

1. The proposed action will only permanently impact 19.73 acres of low quality Quino habitat that represents about 15.6 percent of the potential Quino habitat at the project site, and even smaller percentages rangewide.

2. Adverse effects to Quino will be avoided and/or minimized by the proposed conservation measures.

3. The number of Quino potentially adversely impacted is minimal relative to the abundance and distribution of the species range-wide population.

4. With the proposed 18.1 acres of restoration, 5.49 acres of invasive species control and long-term management, the project site is expected to support more Quino than under baseline conditions.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act, taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the proposed action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

Quantifying the precise number of Quino individuals that may be incidentally taken through habitat modification is not possible because the small body size and diapause life stage make the observance or detection of mortality highly unlikely and losses and numbers may be masked by seasonal or annual fluctuations in populations or other causes. Likewise, it is not possible to

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 19 predict the precise number of Quino that may be captured, collected, and relocated during project activities. Consistent with our effects analysis and because we cannot reasonably identify or predict the number of Quino individuals likely to be taken, we have established the following habitat-based and specific thresholds of observed death and injury to monitor the level of incidental take. If these impacts or thresholds are exceeded or occur in a manner inconsistent with this biological opinion, it would prompt reinitiation of formal consultation in accordance with 50 CFR §402.16.

Take of Quino is exempted as follows:

1. Death and injury of Quino eggs and larvae within up to 29.95 acres (19.73 acres permanent and 10.22 temporary) of occupied Quino habitat. The amount or extent of incidental take will be exceeded if more than 29.95 acres (19.73 acres permanent and

10.22 temporary) are impacted during project construction.

2. Capture, collection, and/or relocation of eggs, larvae, and adults during project activities. The take exemption will be met if one egg masse, larva, and/or adult is killed or injured during each capture, collection, and/or relocation event.

EFFECT OF TAKE

In the accompanying biological opinion, we determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to Quino.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

The CBP is implementing significant conservation measures as part of the proposed action to avoid, minimize and offset the incidental take of Quino during construction and implementation of the Brown Field Border Patrol Station Project. We have not identified any other measures that would further minimize the incidental take of this species. We believe the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate to monitor the incidental take of Quino and to provide a trigger for reinitiation of consultation, if necessary.

RPM 1. The CBP will monitor and report on compliance with the established take exemptions for Quino prior to and following construction impacting occupied Quino habitat at the Brown Field Border Patrol Station Project.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the CBP must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implements the reasonable and prudent measure described above. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

TC 1. For project activities that occur during Quino reproduction season (February 15 to August 15), monitoring of occurrences of host plants flagged for avoidance will occur within 2 days after project implementation to determine if any of these

Mr. Joseph Zidron (FWS-SDG-17B0064-19I0131) 20 host plants were affected. If any host plants were affected by project activities from February 15 to August 15, it will be reported to the CFWO via email within 1 week;

TC 2. The CBP will submit an annual report to the CFWO that describes and summarizes project activities, including a cumulative total of the amount of habitat affected. The report will include the number of Quino occurrences (adults, eggs, and larvae) detected within work areas, the number salvaged and translocated, and the locations of the translocation; and

TC 3. If the level of take exempted in this biological opinion is exceeded at any time, the CBP will…