Appendix E.7. Aquatic Larval Surveys: California Tiger Salamander, California Red-legged Frog

Transcription

1 Appendix E.7 Aquatic Larval Surveys: California Tiger Salamander, California Red-legged Frog

2 2013 Aquatic Larval Surveys, California Tiger Salamander California Red-legged Frog Project # Prepared for: California Flats Solar, LLC 135 Main Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA Attn: Scott Dawson Prepared by: 1 Cal Poly Technology Park Bldg. 83, Ste. 1B San Luis Obispo, CA Ph: F:

3 Executive Summary In and near the (Project) in Monterey County, California, H. T. Harvey & Associates conducted larval surveys, under its 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit, for California tiger salamanders (CTS) and California red-legged frogs (CRF). The dual purpose of the surveys was to determine CTS presence or provide evidence of CTS absence, and to better understand the distribution of CRF breeding in ponds and pools within or near the Project. This report presents the results of the larval surveys. On 5 November 2012, 20 February 2013, and 1 May 2012 submitted letters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting approval to conduct larval survey for CTS and CRF at selected sites on and near the Project site. Upon receipt of survey approval, we conducted CTS larval surveys at 17 ponds and CRF larval surveys at 42 ponds or in-stream pools in and near the Project site. From one to three surveys of each identified potential breeding site for either species were conducted by herpetologists Jeff Wilkinson and Steve Carpenter on March, April, May, and 23 May Surveys were conducted per the joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game 2003 Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005 Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. No CTS larvae were observed in any of the 17 ponds surveyed for this species. Six of the ponds were dry at the time of the first survey. Egg masses and/or tadpoles of CRF were observed in seven pools within Cottonwood Creek and Drainage 2 on the Project site and in a pond just south of State Route 46 (Pond 16). Adult and/or juvenile CRF were found in an additional nine pools in Cottonwood Creek, Drainage 1, and Drainage 2. Also, western pond turtles (a species of special concern) were found in three ponds and three instream pools on the Project site. All of the pools where CRF were found are located on the southern reaches of Cottonwood Creek and Drainages 1 and 2 on the Project site. These results suggest that CTS are not present on the Project site or are at least are not using these ponds to breed, and that CRF are breeding in the deeper pools in the southern reaches of Cottonwood Creek and Drainages 1 on the Project site and in Drainage 2 just south of the Project site CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys i

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary... i Table of Contents... ii Section 1.0 Introduction... 1 Section 2.0 Methods California Tiger Salamander Larval Surveys California Red-legged Frog Larval Surveys... 6 Section 3.0 Results California Tiger Salamander Larval Surveys California Red-legged Frog Larval Surveys Section 4.0 Discussion California Tiger Salamander California Red-legged Frog Section 5.0 Literature Cited Appendix A. Photos of Ponds Surveyed for CRF and CTS; Pond Numbers Correspond to Figure 3... A-1 Appendix B. Photos of In-stream Pools Surveyed for CRF; Numbers Correspond to Figure 4... B-1 Appendix C. Observational Photos of Vertebrate Species... C-1 Appendix D. Datasheets for CRF Surveys... D-1 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map... 3 Figure 2. California Tiger Salamander CNDDB Records... 4 Figure 3. California Red-legged Frog CNDDB Records... 5 Figure 4. Ponds Surveyed for CTS... 8 Figure 5. Ponds and In-stream Pools Surveyed for CRF... 9 Tables Table 1. Ponds Surveyed for California Tiger Salamander Table 2. Ponds and Pools Surveyed for California Red-legged Frog Preparers Brian Boroski, Ph.D., Principal-in-Charge Amy Sparks, J.D., Senior Regulatory Specialist, Project Manager Jeffery A. Wilkinson, Ph.D., Senior Wildlife Ecologist Steve Carpenter, B.S., Wildlife Ecologist Sam Moturi, M.S., GIS Specialist 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys ii

5 Section 1.0 Introduction California Flats Solar, LLC (the Project Proponent), proposes to construct and operate a 280-megawatt (MW) alternating current (AC) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy project the (Project) on an approximately 2600-acre site (Project site) in southeastern Monterey County, California, near the borders of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Kings, and Fresno counties (Figure 1). The proposed Project would include solar arrays, related structures, electrical equipment, and infrastructure improvements, including two substations, an operations and maintenance facility, and a switching station that would connect the Project to Pacific Gas and Electric Company s (PG&E s) Morro Bay Gates 230-kilovolt (kv) transmission line, which currently transects the Project site. Project improvements would be located on approximately 1900 acres of the Project site. Primary access to the Project site would be provided by an existing private roadway (access road) off of State Route 41 (Hwy 41). Turkey Flat Road would provide additional emergency access. In June 2012, conducted a preliminary biological review of the Project site. This review determined that there was a potential for occurrence of California red-legged frogs (CRF; Rana draytonii) and California tiger salamanders (CTS; Ambystoma californiense) on the Project site. This preliminary determination was made based on the potential presence of suitable upland and aquatic breeding habitat on the site, and because the occurrence of these species in the region is documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (Figures 2 and 3; CNDDB 2012). More information was needed to determine the presence or absence of these species on the Project site. In accordance with the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005; CRF Guidance) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander (USFWS and CDFG 2003; CTS Guidance) issued by USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), reconnaissance-level surveys of the Project site were conducted by herpetologist Jeff Wilkinson in April then prepared site assessments documenting site conditions and the location of the Project site relative to known occurrences of CRF and CTS ( 2012a, b). The site assessments were submitted to USFWS on 30 July 2012 for CRF and on 5 November 2012 for CTS. In submitting the assessments, requested determinations regarding whether field surveys were necessary, as well as any applicable guidance on the performance of field surveys according to USFWS protocols for determining the presence or absence of these species. Authorizations to conduct CRF surveys and CTS larval surveys on the Project site were received from USFWS on 10 August 2012 and 11 December 2012, respectively. On 16 August 2012, herpetologists Jeff Wilkinson and Kirk Setser conducted a single CRF survey of the Project site. They observed CRF in Cottonwood Creek and in one other drainage (Drainage 2) on the Project site. The results of the survey were submitted to USFWS on 5 September CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 1

6 Even though CRF were observed on the Project site, the extent of their distribution on the site was not well known because the single survey was conducted in August, when many of the ponds and wetlands on the site were dry. In particular, the locations of aquatic breeding habitat for this species on the Project site were not known, even though young-of-the-year metamorphic frogs were observed in Cottonwood Creek. These young-of-the-year may have metamorphosed from the in-stream pools where they were observed, or may have dispersed to these pools from other potential breeding sites that had dried by August. Therefore, spring larval surveys were deemed necessary to document the locations of aquatic CRF breeding habitat in the wetlands on the Project site and at the two stock ponds along the access road. The two stock ponds are instream impoundments along a drainage that parallels Turkey Flat Road in Stone Corral Canyon. Requests to conduct the spring CRF larval surveys on the Project site were submitted to the USFWS on 20 February These surveys were to be conducted in conjunction with the spring CTS larval surveys, approved in December Authorization to conduct the spring CRF larval surveys was received from USFWS on 26 February On 1 May 2013, requests for CTS larval surveys at additional ponds in the area surrounding the Project site (pending approval from the property owners) were submitted to USFWS. Authorization to survey these additional ponds was received from USFWS on 15 May The purpose of this report is to present the results of the spring larval surveys for CTS and CRF in order to determine the presence of or provide evidence for the absence of CTS on or near the Project site and to better understand the distribution of breeding sites for CRF on the Project site CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 2

7 SA N B E N I T O ^_ Fresno Detail }þ }þ }þ FR E S N O California }þ 25 M O N T E R E Y 101 ^_ }þ }þ }þ 269 }þ }þ 33 }þ }þ }þ 33 }þ ± 1 }þ Miles Project Vicinity San Luis Obispo }þ 145 }þ 58 }þ 198 SA N L U I S O B I S PO!"#$ 5 K E R N }þ 166 SANTA BARBARA Hanford K I N G S ^_ Proposed Solar Generation Facility C h o lam e C re e k C ott o n w o o d C re ek Access Route J:\Reports\Wildlife Reports\CTS-CRF Survey Report June 2013\Fig 1 Vicinity Map.mxd ± Miles Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, ipc, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Figure 1: Vicinity Map - CTS/CRF Survey Report ( ) August 2013

8 LEGEND Project Boundary 3.10-Mile Radius 1.24-Mile Radius California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat California Tiger Salamander CNDDB Records Specific Location Approximate Location ± General Area Miles CTS 584 Proposed Solar Generation Facility }þ 33 CTS 264 Access Route }þ 41 J:\Reports\Wildlife Reports\CTS-CRF Survey Report June 2013\Fig 2 CTS CNDDB Records.mxd }þ 46 CTS 263 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, ipc, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 }þ 46 Figure 2: California Tiger Salamander CNDDB Records - CTS/CRF Survey Report ( ) August 2013

9 LEGEND Project Location 5-Mile Radius 1-Mile Radius California Red-legged Frog Critical Habitat California Red-legged Frog CNDDB Records Specific Location Approximate Location General Area ± Miles }þ 33 J:\Reports\Wildlife Reports\CTS-CRF Survey Report June 2013\Fig 3 CRLF CNDDB Records.mxd }þ 46 CRLF 467 CRLF 469 CRLF 468 CRLF 48 }þ 41 }þ 46 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, ipc, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Figure 3: California Red-legged Frog CNDDB Records - CTS/CRF Survey Report ( ) August 2013

10 Section 2.0 Methods 2.1 California Tiger Salamander Larval Surveys herpetologists Steve Carpenter and Jeff Wilkinson visited the ponds depicted on Figure 4 to conduct aquatic CTS larval surveys during the months of March, April, and May. During the surveys, Steve Carpenter carried a copy of the recovery permit and his individual Scientific Collecting Permit, which specifically allows surveying for and handling of CTS. The herpetologists visited Ponds 13, 14, and 15 on 19 March 2013, with return visits to Ponds 13 and 14 on 29 April and 14 May 2013 because they contained standing water. They visited Pond 11 on 29 April 2013; Pond 12 on 19 March, 29 April, and 14 May 2013; Ponds 2 10 on 15 and 16 May 2013; and Ponds 1, 16, and 17 on 23 May Aquatic larval sampling of these potential breeding ponds was conducted following the CTS Guidance. Before each survey, the date and time of the survey were recorded; then each pond was georeferenced with a handheld GPS device, noted for type and quality of wetland and presence of aquatic vegetation; measured for depth, dimensions, water temperature, and turbidity; and finally photographed. During each visit, the ponds were first sampled by performing 50 sweeps using a D-shaped, long-handled dipnet with a 1/8 th -inch mesh. When no CTS larvae were captured during the dipnet sweeps, a 1/8 th -inch mesh seine was then used to sample at least 30% of the surface area of each pond; some ponds were too large to allow a larger percentage of the surface to be sampled. All aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates observed during sampling were documented. Had a larval CTS been captured during any sampling with a dipnet or seine, the sampling would have ceased and no further sampling of the pond would have been performed. Any CTS observed during the surveys would have been recorded and documented in the CNDDB. 2.2 California Red-legged Frog Larval Surveys Carpenter and Wilkinson conducted three CRF larval surveys: on March, 29 and 30 April, and 14 May During surveys, Carpenter carried a copy of the recovery permit and his individual Scientific Collecting Permit, which specifically allows surveying for and handling of CRF. Before each survey, the date and time of the survey, air temperature, wind speed, and percent cloud cover were recorded. Binoculars were used in all surveys to assist in searching for frogs and egg masses. During each survey, the herpetologists first surveyed the three stock ponds (Ponds 12, 13, and 14, depicted on Figure 5) using a D-shaped, long-handled dipnet with 1/8 th -inch mesh to capture CRF tadpoles and a 1/8 th -inch mesh seine when CRF surveys coincided with CTS surveys. They then surveyed 39 pools within three drainages on the Project site (Figure 5), looking for ponding of sufficient depth (approximately 1 foot or deeper). Sufficiently ponded areas were then searched for egg masses and sampled for tadpoles using dipnets CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 6

11 To prevent the spread of pathogens, the decontamination procedures recommended in the CRF Guidance were followed. All aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates observed during sampling were documented. When a CRF tadpole was captured during any sampling of a pond or pool, sampling of the pond or pool ceased. All CRF egg masses, tadpoles, and postmetamorphic frogs observed during the surveys were recorded and georeferenced. The observations were also submitted to the CNDDB. This report includes a map of the site showing the locations of all CRF observed (Figure 5), completed CRF Guidance observation datasheets (Appendix D), and photographs of each habitat sampled, as well as of CRF egg masses, tadpoles, and frogs observed during the surveys when photography was feasible (Appendices A C) CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 7

12 Pond 1!(!( Pond 2 Pond 3!( Pond 5!(!( Pond 9 Pond 4!(!( Pond 6!( Pond 7 Pond 8!( Pond 11!(!( Pond 10 TURKEY FLAT RD e k Pond 12!( C o t t o C r n w o o d e MONTEREY COUNTY KINGS COUNTY C h o l a m e C!( Pond 13 r e e k!( Pond 14 MONTEREY COUNTY SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CHOLAME VALLEY RD J:\Reports\Wildlife Reports\CTS-CRF Survey Report June 2013\Fig 4 Ponds Surveyed for CTS.mxd LEGEND ±!( Ponds Survyed for CTS Biological Study Area 4,600 2, ,600 Feet Pond 15!( STATE HIGHWAY 46 STATE HIGHWAY 41!(!( Pond 16 Pond 17 Figure 4: Ponds Surveyed for CTS - CTS/CRF Survey Report ( ) August 2013

13 1 #* 39 * # * # *# D r a i n a g e 2 TURKEY FLAT RD D r a i n a g e ### *** 4 31 *# 32 *# 29 #* *# #* #* 8 #* ## ** *# ** ## 34 #* *# *# #* *# ## ** ## ## # ** ** * #* C o t 12 C r e e k t o n w o o d J:\Reports\Wildlife Reports\CTS-CRF Survey Report June 2013\Fig 5 Ponds and In-stream Pools Surveyed for CRF.mxd LEGEND ± #* Ponds Surveyed for CRF #* Ponds where CRF Egg Masses, Larvae, and/or Post-metamorphic Frogs were Observed Wetland Delineation Study Area Definite Regulatory Features Special Aquatic Sites/ Wetlands Ephemeral Stream Intermittent Stream Perennial Stream Culvert 2,600 1, ,600 Feet #* 14 #* Figure 5: Ponds and In-stream Pools Surveyed for CRF 13 - CTS/CRF Survey Report ( ) August 2013

14 Section 3.0 Results 3.1 California Tiger Salamander Larval Surveys No CTS were observed during any of the surveys for this species. Ponds 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 15 (Figure 4) were dry when they were first surveyed, and so were not surveyed further. In particular, Pond 9 appeared to be a flat area on the southern slope of the hills north of the Project site; this area was observed to be unable to pond due to erosion of a berm bordering the flat area on its downslope side (Photo 9). We therefore do not consider Pond 9 to be a functioning pond. During CTS surveys, other species were observed in the ponds that contained standing water. Larvae of CRF were observed in Pond 16 (Photo 85), and a juvenile CRF was observed jumping into Pond 17. Western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata; WPT) were observed in the two stock ponds (Ponds 13 and 14) along the access road (Photo 86). Larvae of Sierra chorus frog (Pseudacris sierrae) were observed in Ponds 2, 7, 8, and 16, and mosquito fish (Gambusia sp.) were observed in Pond 7. These observations are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, with photographs of the ponds surveyed in Appendix A, and photographs of vertebrate species observed in Appendix C. 3.2 California Red-legged Frog Larval Surveys During the first CRF larval survey (19 21 March), 13 adult CRF were observed in eight pools in three drainages: Cottonwood Creek, Drainage 1, and Drainage 2, as shown on Figure 4 (Table 2, Photos 87 and 88). Cottonwood Creek and Drainage 1 confluence approximately 0.45 mile southwest of the Project site, and then join Cholame Creek approximately 2.0 miles southwest of the Project site. Drainage 2 confluences with Cholame Creek approximately 1.8 miles upstream and northwest of the Cholame Creek/Cottonwood Creek confluence. No CRF tadpoles were observed during the dipnet sampling, but eight CRF egg masses were observed within six pools in Drainage 2 and Cottonwood Creek (Table 2, Photos 89 and 90). Three adult CRF were also heard calling in one pool in Cottonwood Creek. The observations of egg masses and calling males during the first survey indicate that CRF were breeding on the site at the time of the survey; therefore, further dipnetting in the ponded areas of the drainages was halted to avoid disturbing the breeding activity of the frogs. No frogs or egg masses were observed in the two stock ponds along the access road. By the second survey (29 and 30 April), eight of the pools surveyed in the first survey were dry (Table 2). During the second survey, 13 adult and 7 juvenile CRF were observed within 10 pools in the three drainages on and near the Project site (Table 2; Photos 91 and 92). In addition, 10 CRF tadpoles were sampled from three pools in Drainage 2 and Cottonwood Creek (Table 2, Photos 93 95). Again, no frogs or tadpoles were observed in the two stock ponds along the access road CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 10

15 During the third survey (14 May), Carpenter and Wilkinson observed seven adult CRF in Drainage 1 (Table 2). They did not survey Cottonwood Creek and Drainage 2 because the previous two surveys had provided enough information on the distribution of breeding within these drainages. Again, no adult or larval CRF were observed in the two stock ponds along the access road. As mentioned above, WPT were observed in the two stock ponds along the access road, and in five other ponds and in-stream pools in Cottonwood Creek, Drainage 1, and Drainage 2 (Photos 96 and 97) on the Project site. California roach (Hesperoleucus symmetricus; Photos 98 and 99) and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus; Photos 100 and 101) were observed in 10 pools in Cottonwood Creek and Drainage 2 (Table 1). Valley garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi; Photo 102) and a gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer; Photo 103) were also observed near the drainages on the Project site. Locations of in-stream pools sampled by dipnetting and ponds sampled by dipnetting and sometimes seining, as well as locations of CRF egg masses, tadpoles, and postmetamorphic frogs observed during the surveys, are presented in Figure 5, Table 2, and the datasheets in Appendix D. Photographs of these pools and ponds are in Appendix B, and photographs of vertebrate species observed are in Appendix C CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 11

16 Table 1. Ponds Surveyed for California Tiger Salamander Pond UTM Zone 10S Northing Easting Pond Features a Date of Survey March Survey April Survey May Survey CTS Obs. Vert. Obs. b Pond Depth Date of Survey CTS Obs. Vert. Obs. b Pond Depth Date of Survey CTS Obs. Vert. Obs. b Pond Depth x160 ft cloud 120x120 ft clear, sv /23/13 no no 6 in /16/13 no pssi 3.5 ft x70 ft /15/13 no no dry x100 ft /15/13 no no dry x120 ft cloud 60x70 ft cloud 170x130 ft clear, sv 350x200 ft clear, ev /16/13 no no 1.5 ft /16/13 no no 6 in /16/13 no /16/13 no pssi 4 ft N/A /15/13 no no dry x50 ft /15/13 no no dry x100 ft /29/13 no no dry x50 ft cloud, ev 400x200 ft cloud, ev 350x120 ft clear 3/19/13 no WPT 1.5 ft 4/29/13 no no 4 in 5/14/13 no no 1 in 3/19/13 no WPT 3 ft 4/29/13 no WPT 3 ft 5/14/13 no WPT 3 ft 3/19/13 no WPT 4 ft 4/29/13 no WPT 4 ft 5/14/13 no WPT 4 ft x120 ft 3/19/13 no no dry x250 ft clear, ev /23/13 no CRF la 4 ft pssi gam 4 ft

17 Pond 17 UTM Zone 10S Northing Easting Pond Features a Date of Survey x70 ft cloud, ev March Survey April Survey May Survey CTS Obs. Vert. Obs. b Pond Depth Date of Survey CTS Obs. Vert. Obs. b Pond Depth Date of Survey CTS Obs. Vert. Obs. b Pond Depth /23/13 no CRF jv 3.5 ft a Pond Features: ev = emergent vegetation present, sv = submergent vegetation present, clear = relatively clear water, cloud = relatively cloudy water. b Vertebrates Observed: CRF = California red-legged frog, gam = mosquito fish, jv = juvenile, la = larvae, pssi = Sierra chorus frog, WPT = western pond turtle.

18 Table 2. Ponds and Pools Surveyed for California Red-legged Frog Pond/ Pool UTM Zone 10S Easting Northing Pond Features a Date of Survey March Surveys April Surveys May Surveys CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth Date of Survey CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth Date of Survey CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth x100 ft, ev 3/20/13 no no 2 in x22 ft, ev 3/19/13 no no 1.5 ft 4/29/13 no no dry x15 ft 3/19/13 no no 4 in 4/29/13 no no dry x40 ft, ev 3/19/13 no no 4 in 4/29/13 no no dry x12 ft, sv, ev 3/21/13 1 eg no 1.5 ft 4/30/13 1 jv hesy 1.5 ft x16 ft, sv 3/19/13 no 1 WPT 2.5 ft 4/29/13 no 7 WPT 2.5 ft 5/14/13 no 3 WPT 2.5 ft x16 ft 3/19/13 no no 6 in 4/29/13 no no 4 in x20 ft 3/20/13 no no 4 in 4/29/13 no no dry x16 ft 3/20/13 no no 6 in 4/29/13 no no dry x15 ft, sv 3/21/13 no no 1.5 ft 4/30/13 no no 6 in x30 ft, sv 90x50 ft, ev 400x200 ft, ev /30/13 1 jv rhos 1 ft /19/13 no 1 WPT 1.5 ft 4/29/13 no no 4 in 5/14/13 no no 1 in 3/19/13 no 2 WPT 3 ft 4/29/13 no 3 WPT 3 ft 5/14/13 no 6 WPT 3 ft x120 ft 3/19/13 no 1 WPT 4 ft 4/29/13 no 2 WPT 4 ft 5/14/13 no 5 WPT 4 ft x12 ft 3/21/13 no no 1 ft 4/30/13 no no 6 in x12 ft, ev, sv 4x12 ft, ev, sv 3/21/13 no no 1 ft 4/30/13 no no 6 in /21/13 no no 2 ft 4/30/13 no no 6 in x12 ft, sv 3/21/13 no no 1 ft 4/30/13 1 jv 1 tsf 1 ft x20 ft, sv 3/21/13 no no 2 ft 4/30/13 1 jv pssi 7 in

19 Pond/ Pool UTM Zone 10S Easting Northing Pond Features a Date of Survey March Surveys April Surveys May Surveys CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth Date of Survey CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c hesy Pond Depth Date of Survey x20 ft, sv 3/21/13 3 ad no 2 ft 4/30/13 no no 2 ft x15 ft, sv 3/21/13 no no 6 in 4/30/13 no no 1 in x20 ft, ev, sv 6x18 ft, ev, sv 3x20 ft, ev, sv 2x18 ft, ev, sv 3x17 ft, ev 3/21/13 no no 1.5 ft 4/30/13 no hesy rhos CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth 1.5 ft /21/13 no no 1.5 ft 4/30/13 no pssi 1 in /21/13 1 eg no 2 ft 4/30/13 1 ad no 10 in /21/13 no no 1 ft 4/30/13 no no 1 ft /21/13 2 eg no 2.5 ft 4/30/13 3 ad 2 la hesy 2.5 ft x12 ft, sv 3/21/13 no no 1.5 ft 4/30/13 no no 6 in x4 ft, sv 3/20/13 4 ad pssi >3 ft 4/29/13 7 ad 1 jv no >3 ft 5/14/13 7 ad no >3 ft x18 ft, sv 3/20/13 1 ad no 2.5 ft x40 ft, ev, sv 10x12 ft, ev 20x10 ft, ev, sv 8x15 ft, ev, sv 9x20 ft, ev, sv 3/20/13 no no 4 in /20/13 1 ad 2 WPT hesy 1 ft /20/13 no hesy 1 ft /21/13 no no 1.5 ft 4/30/13 2 ad no 1 ft /21/13 no no 1 ft 4/30/13 1 jv 6 la 1 WPT rhos 1 ft x17 ft, 3/21/13 no hesy 1.5 ft 4/30/13 no hesy 1 ft

20 Pond/ Pool UTM Zone 10S Easting Northing Pond Features a ev, sv Date of Survey March Surveys April Surveys May Surveys CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth Date of Survey CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth Date of Survey x20 ft, sv /30/13 1 jv rhos 1 ft x12 ft 3/21/13 no no 1.5 ft 4/30/13 no no dry x50 ft, sv /30/13 no no 6 in x14 ft 3/21/13 1 ad 2 eg no 1 ft x15 ft, sv 3/21/13 no no 3 ft x16 ft, sv 3/21/13 1 ad 1 eg no 1.5 in x12 ft, /20/13 1 ad 1 eg 3 WPT 3.5 ft 4/30/13 2 la 7 WPT 3.5 ft ev, sv a Pond Features: ev = emergent vegetation, sv = submergent vegetation. b CRF Observed: ad = adult, jv = juvenile, la = larvae, eg = egg mass. c Vertebrates Observed: pssi = Sierra chorus frog, hesy = California roach, rhos = speckled dace, tsf = valley garter snake, WPT = western pond turtle. CRF Obs. b Vert. Obs. c Pond Depth

21 Section 4.0 Discussion 4.1 California Tiger Salamander The negative results from the CTS surveys suggest that CTS are not present on the Project site. In particular, negative results from three surveys in the stock ponds along the access road (Ponds 13 and 14) and the pond near the proposed transmission line (Pond 12) suggest that CTS are absent from the Project area or are at least not using these ponds to breed. The absence of any other amphibian larvae (i.e., western toad [Anaxyrus boreas], western spadefoot toad [Spea hammondii], Sierra chorus frog) in these ponds indicates that these ponds are currently not conducive to amphibian breeding and rearing. The other ponds within dispersal distance of the Project site and that were available for survey (Ponds 9, 10, 11, and 15) were dry when visited for surveys. Pond 9, in particular, does not function as a pond due to an eroded berm. Based on the presence of exposed dirt at their lowest portions, Ponds 10 and 15 may have held water for a short period during last winter s storm events, but certainly did not pond long enough to support successful CTS breeding (a minimum of 10 weeks; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Finally, based on the presence of upland grasses throughout, Pond 11 appears not to have ponded at all in the recent past. Negative results from surveys of ponds located farther than 1.24 miles from the Project site (i.e., the CTS dispersal distance; Ponds 1 8, 16, and 17) also suggest that CTS are absent from the immediate area. Five of these ponds (Ponds 2, 7, 8, 16, and 17) contained a large amount of standing water and invertebrate and vertebrate prey (aquatic insects and Sierra chorus frog and CRF tadpoles) during the May surveys, making them ideal CTS ponds, with a hydroperiod sufficient to support CTS breeding. If healthy populations of CTS were consistently using these ponds, these surveys should have detected a high number of relatively large (2 6-inch) larvae at this time of year, as are evident in similar surveys in this and other regions of the species range ( 2011, 2012c). The best explanation for why CTS are not using these ponds appears to be the absence of CTS within the dispersal distance of these ponds. 4.2 California Red-legged Frog The results of focused surveys for CRF indicate that CRF are breeding in the lower half of Cottonwood Creek on the Project site and in Drainage 2 just south of the Project site. These reaches contain the deeper pools that hold water through spring and probably into summer, and which are sufficient for CRF to breed and for tadpoles to complete metamorphosis (Hayes and Jennings 1988; Jennings and Hayes 1994). In contrast, the northern reaches of these drainages have fewer and shallower pools; these appear to dry earlier in the season and may not pond long enough for tadpoles to complete metamorphosis. Also, even though we did not find CRF tadpoles in Drainage 1, several large females and adult males were observed in Pool 28, which, because of its depth and vertical banks, could not be entirely surveyed for 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 17

22 tadpoles. We expect that CRF are breeding in this deep pool in the lower reach of Drainage 1, just within the southern boundary of the Project site. As mentioned previously, we were puzzled by the negative results of surveys at the two stock ponds along the access road (Ponds 13 and 14). These ponds exhibit deep, extensive ponding, and Pond 13 supports emergent vegetation (cattails); the ponds appear to be good aquatic breeding habitat for CRF, but, CRF in the area are not using these ponds for breeding CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 18

23 Section 5.0 Literature Cited [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hayes, M. P., and M. R. Jennings Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): implications for management. Pages in R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton (Technical Coordinators), Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in North America. General Technical Report RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Final California Tiger Salamander Surveys Report for the California Valley Solar Ranch Project San Luis Obispo County, California. Project a. California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment California Flats Solar Project. Project b. California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment California Flats Solar Project. Project c. Lin Livermore Conservation Area California Red-legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander Mitigation Monitoring 2011 Report. Project Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. [USFWS and CDFG] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the Californian Tiger Salamander. October 22. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. August CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys 19

24 Appendix A. Photos of Ponds Surveyed for CRF and CTS; Pond Numbers Correspond to Figure 3 Photo 1. Pond 1 on 23 May Photo 2. Pond 2 on 16 May Photo 3. Pond 3 on 15 May Photo 4. Pond 4 on 15 May Photo 5. Pond 5 on 16 May Photo 6. Pond 6 on 16 May CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys A-1

25 Photo 7. Pond 7 on 16 May Photo 8. Pond 8 on 16 May Photo 9. Pond 9 on 15 May Photo 10. Pond 10 on 15 May Photo 11. Pond 11 on 29 April Photo 12. Pond 12 on 19 March CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys A-2

26 Photo 13. Pond 12 on 29 April Photo 14. Pond 12 on 14 May Photo 15. Pond 13 on 19 March Photo 16. Pond 13 on 29 April Photo 17. Pond 13 on 14 May Photo 18. Pond 14 on 19 March CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys A-3

27 Photo 19. Pond 14 on 29 April Photo 20. Pond 14 on 14 May Photo 21. Pond 15 on 19 March Photo 22. Pond 16 on 23 May Photo 23. Pond 17 on 23 May CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys A-4

28 Appendix B. Photos of In-stream Pools Surveyed for CRF; Numbers Correspond to Figure 4 Photo 24. Pool 1 on 20 March Photo 25. Pool 2 on 19 March Photo 26. Pool 2 on 29 April Photo 27. Pool 3 on 19 March CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-1

29 Photo 28. Pool 3 on 29 April Photo 29. Pool 4 on 19 March Photo 30. Pool 4 on 29 April Photo 31. Pool 6 on 19 March Photo 32. Pool 6 on 29 April Photo 33. Pool 6 on 14 May CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-2

30 Photo 34. Pool 7 on 19 March Photo 35. Pool 7 on 29 April Photo 36. Pool 8 on 20 March Photo 37. Pool 8 on 29 April Photo 38. Pool 9 on 20 March Photo 39. Pool 9 on 29 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-3

31 Photo 40. Pool 10 on 21 March Photo 41. Pool 11 on 30 April Photo 42. Pool 5 on 21 March Photo 43. Pool 5 on 30 April Photo 44. Pool 15 on 21 March Photo 45. Pool 15 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-4

32 Photo 47. Pool 17 on 21 March Photo 46. Pool 16 on 21 March Photo 48. Pool 17 on 30 April Photo 49. Pool 18 on 21 March Photo 51. Pool 19 on 21 March Photo 50. Pool 18 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-5

33 Photo 53. Pool 20 on 21 March Photo 52. Pool 19 on 30 April Photo 54. Pool 20 on 30 April Photo 55. Pool 21 on 21 March Photo 56. Pool 21 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-6

34 Photo 57. Pool 22 on 21 March Photo 58. Pool 22 on 30 April Photo 59. Pool 23 on 21 March Photo 60. Pool 23 on 30 April Photo 61. Pool 24 on 21 March Photo 62. Pool 24 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-7

35 Photo 63. Pool 25 on 21 March Photo 64. Pool 25 on 30 April Photo 65. Pool 26 on 30 April Photo 66. Pool 27 on 21 March Photo 68. Pool 28 on 20 March Photo 67. Pool 27 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-8

36 Photo 70. Pool 30 on 20 March Photo 69. Pool 29 on 20 March Photo 72. Pool 32 on 20 March Photo 71. Pool 31 on 20 March Photo 73. Pool 33 on 21 March Photo 74. Pool 33 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-9

37 Photo 75. Pool 34 on 30 April Photo 76. Pool 35 on 30 April Photo 78. Pool 37 on 21 March Photo 77. Pool 36 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-10

38 Photo 80. Pool 39 on 21 March Photo 79. Pool 38 on 30 April Photo 82. Pool 41 on 21 March Photo 81. Pool 40 on 21 March Photo 83. Pool 42 on 20 March Photo 84. Pool 42 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys B-11

39 Appendix C. Observational Photos of Vertebrate Species Photo 85. CRF tadpoles caught in Pond 16 Photo 86. WPT caught in Pond 13 of of Figure 4 on 23 May Figures 4 and 5 on 14 May Photo 87. Adult CRF observed in Pool Photo 88. Adult CRF observed in Pool of Figure 5 on 21 March of Figure 5 on 20 March Photo 89. CRF egg mass observed in Photo 90. CRF egg mass observed in Pool 39 of Figure 5 on 21 March Pool 24 of Figure 5 on 21 March CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys C-1

40 Photo 91. Juvenile CRF caught in Photo 92. Juvenile CRF caught in Pool 28 of Figure 5 on 29 April Pool 34 of Figure 5 on 30 April Photo 93. CRF tadpole caught in Pool 42 Photo 94. CRF tadpoles caught in Pool of Figure 5 on 30 April of Figure 5 on 30 April Photo 95. CRF tadpole caught in Pool 34 of Figure 5 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys C-2

41 Photo 96. WPT observed in Pool Photo 97. WPT caught in Pool of Figure 5 on 20 March of Figure 5 on 30 April Photo 98. California roach caught in Pool 5 of Figure 5 on 30 April Photo 99. California roach caught in Pool 22 of Figure 5 on 30 April CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys C-3

42 Photo 100. Speckled dace caught in Pool 11 of Figure 5 on 30 April Photo 101. Speckled dace caught in Pool 22 of Figure 5 on 30 April Photo 102. Valley garter snake caught near Photo 103. Gopher snake observed near Cottonwood Creek on 21 March Drainage 1 on 19 March CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys C-4

43 Appendix D. Datasheets for CRF Surveys 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-1

44 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey:03/19/2013 Survey Biologist: Carpenter Steve (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: Wilkinson Jeff (Last name) (first name) Site Location: California Flats (see Vicinity Map), Monterey County, California (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: Brief description of proposed action: The proposed project is a 280 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic solar power plant in Monterey County, California. Type of Survey (circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): Begin Time: 1218 End Time: 1630 Cloud cover: 0% Precipitation: No Air Temperature: 25.2C Water Temperature: 18C Wind Speed: Beaufort 1 Visibility Conditions: Clear Moon phase: Waxing Gibbous 60% of Full Humidity: 65% Description of weather conditions: Clear with some early morning marine layer, burning off by 9 am. Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? YES NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: Swift Warbler Model # 829, 8 X CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-2

45 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Species # of indiv. Observed(O)Heard (H) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of Identification Rana draytonii 0 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: Trampling by cattle. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. 5 WPT observed in Pools 6, of Figure 5. Aquatic invertebrate prey base = Notonectid, Belostomatid, and Ephemeropteran insects. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-3

46 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey:03/20/2013 Survey Biologist: Carpenter Steve (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: Wilkinson Jeff (Last name) (first name) Site Location: California Flats (see Vicinity Map), Monterey County, California (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: Brief description of proposed action: The proposed project is a 280 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic solar power plant in Monterey County, California. Type of Survey (circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): Begin Time: 1218 End Time: 1630 Cloud cover: 0% Precipitation: No Air Temperature: 25.2C Water Temperature: 18C Wind Speed: Beaufort 1 Visibility Conditions: Clear Moon phase: Waxing Gibbous 60% of Full Humidity: 65% Description of weather conditions: Clear with some early morning marine layer, burning off by 9am.. Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? YES NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: Swift Warbler Model # 829, 8 X CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-4

47 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Species # of indiv. Observed(O)Heard (H) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of Identification Rana draytonii 7 Ad, 1 egg mass O Adults, Eggs Ad Eggs 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: Trampling by cattle. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. CRF (adults, egg masses) observed in Pools 28, 29, 31, and 42 of Figure 5. 5 WPT observed in Pools 31 and 42 of Figure 5. Aquatic invertebrate prey base = Notonectid, Belostomatid, and Ephemeropteran insects. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-5

48 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey:03/21/2013 Survey Biologist: Carpenter Steve (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: Wilkinson Jeff (Last name) (first name) Site Location: California Flats (see Vicinity Map), Monterey County, California (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: Brief description of proposed action: The proposed project is a 280 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic solar power plant in Monterey County, California. Type of Survey (circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): Begin Time: 1109 End Time: 1630 Cloud cover: 50% Precipitation: No Air Temperature: 51F Water Temperature: 62F Wind Speed: Beaufort 1 Visibility Conditions: am fog Moon phase: Waxing Gibbous 65% of Full Humidity: 65% Description of weather conditions: Clear with some early morning marine layer, burning off by 11am. Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? YES NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: Swift Warbler Model # 829, 8 X CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-6

49 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Species # of indiv. Observed(O)Heard (H) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of Identification Rana draytonii 5 Ad 7 Egg Masses O Adults, Eggs Ad Eggs 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: Trampling by cattle. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. CRF (adults, egg masses) observed in Pools 5, 20, 24, 26, 39, and 41 of Figure 5. Aquatic invertebrates = Notonectid, Belostomatid, and Ephemeropteran insects. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-7

50 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey:04/29/2013 Survey Biologist: Carpenter Steve (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: Wilkinson Jeff (Last name) (first name) Site Location: California Flats (see Vicinity Map), Monterey County, California (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: Brief description of proposed action: The proposed project is a 280 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic solar power plant in Monterey County, California. Type of Survey (circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): Begin Time: 1414 End Time: 1715 Cloud cover: 0% Precipitation: No Air Temperature: 97F Water Temperature: 75F Wind Speed: Beaufort 3 Visibility Conditions: Clear Moon phase: Waning Gibbous 90% of Full Humidity: 22% Description of weather conditions: Hot and windy Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? YES NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: Swift Warbler Model # 829, 8 X CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-8

51 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Species # of indiv. Observed(O)Heard (H) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of Identification Rana draytonii 7 Adult 1 Juvenile O Adults Juveniles Ad Jv 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: Trampling by cattle. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. CRF observed in Pool 28 of Figure WPT observed in Pool 6 and Ponds 13 and 14 of Figure 5. Aquatic invertebrates = Notonectid, Belostomatid, and Ephemeropteran insects. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-9

52 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey:04/30/2013 Survey Biologist: Carpenter Steve (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: Wilkinson Jeff (Last name) (first name) Site Location: California Flats (see Vicinity Map), Monterey County, California (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: Brief description of proposed action: The proposed project is a 280 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic solar power plant in Monterey County, California. Type of Survey (circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): Begin Time: 1019 End Time: 1715 Cloud cover: 0% Precipitation: No Air Temperature: 97F Water Temperature: 75F Wind Speed: Beaufort 3 Visibility Conditions: Clear Moon phase: Waning Gibbous 85% of Full Humidity: 22% Description of weather conditions: Hot and windy Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? YES NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: Swift Warbler Model # 829, 8 X CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-10

53 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS Species # of indiv. Observed(O)Heard (H) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of Identification Rana draytonii Pseudacris sierra 6 Adults 6 Juveniles 10 Larvae O Adults Juveniles Larvae Ad Jv Lv 100% 1 Adult O Adult AD 100% Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: Trampling by cattle. Other notes, observations, comments, etc. CRF (adults, juveniles, tadpoles) observed in Pools 5, 11, 18, 19, 24, 26, 33, 34, 36, and 42 of Figure 5. 8 WPT observed in Pools 34 and 42 of Figure 5. Aquatic invertebrates = Notonectid, Belostomatid, and Ephemeropteran insects. Necessary Attachments: 4. All field notes and other supporting documents 5. Site photographs 6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 2013 CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-11

54 California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet Survey results reviewed by (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey:05/14/2013 Survey Biologist: Carpenter Steve (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: Wilkinson Jeff (Last name) (first name) Site Location: California Flats (see Vicinity Map), Monterey County, California (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: Brief description of proposed action: The proposed project is a 280 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic solar power plant in Monterey County, California. Type of Survey (circle one): DAY NIGHT BREEDING NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): Begin Time: 1343 End Time: 1430 Cloud cover: 0% Precipitation: No Air Temperature: 86F Water Temperature: 72F Wind Speed: Beaufort 2 Visibility Conditions: clear and calm Moon phase: Waxing crescent 5% of Full Humidity: 43% Description of weather conditions: warm and calm. Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? YES NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: Swift Warbler Model # 829, 8 X CTS/CRF Aquatic Larval Surveys D-12