Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County
Distinct Population Segment of the California
Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
Ambystoma californiense (California tiger salamander). Photograph by Alice Abela. Used with
permission.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
i
Disclaimer
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions as may be necessary, based upon the best scientific
and commercial data available, for the conservation and survival of listed species. We, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the
assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, Tribal agencies, and other affected and
interested parties. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to
budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address
other priorities. Costs indicated for action implementation and time of recovery are estimates and
subject to change. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the view, official positions or
approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the USFWS.
They represent the official position of the USFWS only after they have been signed by the
Regional Director. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only; identification of
an action to be implemented by any public or private party does not create a legal obligation
beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or
requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of
appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act,
31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans are subject to
modification as dictated by new finding, changes in species status, and the completion of
recovery actions.
Literature Citation Should Read as Follows:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Recovery plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct
Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Ventura, California. vi + 87 pp.
An electronic copy of this recovery plan will be made available at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/recovery-plans.html
ii
Acknowledgements
The recovery planning process has benefitted from the advice and assistance of many
individuals, agencies, and organizations. We wish to sincerely thank and gratefully acknowledge
the advice and assistance from the following individuals and apologize to anyone whose name
was inadvertently omitted from this list:
Andrea Adams, formerly U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anne Coates, Cachuma Resource Conservation District
Andy Mills, California Rangeland Trust
John Bechtold, formerly Natural Resources Conservation Service
Paul Collins, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History
Cat Darst, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Katie Drexhage, formerly U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tom Edell, formerly California Department of Transportation
Bridget Fahey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wayne Ferren, formerly of the University of California, Santa Barbara
Jim Hammock, Hammock, Smith, and Company
Barry Hecht, Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Steve Henry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Larry Hunt, Hunt and Associates
Kevin Merrill, Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau
Melissa Mooney, County of Santa Barbara
Eric Morrissette, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jeff Phillips, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Martin Potter, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Roger Root, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Connie Rutherford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris Searcy, University of Miami
H. Bradley Shaffer, University of California, Los Angeles
Sam Sweet, University of California, Santa Barbara
Pete Trenham, formerly U.S. Geological Survey
Kirk Waln, formerly U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
iii
Executive Summary
Current Species Status
The Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense), was listed as endangered throughout its entire range in 2000 under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The DPS is endemic to the northern portion of
Santa Barbara County, California, and currently consists of six distinct metapopulations. The
recovery priority number for the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander is 3C,
indicating a high potential for recovery and a high degree of threat in conflict with development.
Habitat Requirements and Threats
The California tiger salamander requires a combination of pond habitat for breeding and upland
(underground) habitat for the rest of its life cycle. The species depends on a series of
interconnected breeding and upland habitats as a metapopulation, making it particularly sensitive
to changes in the amount, configuration, and quality of these habitats. A metapopulation is a set
of local populations or breeding sites among which dispersal is possible, but not routine. The loss
and destruction of habitat represent the primary threat to the species. Within the range of the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, significant portions of its habitat have been
altered or destroyed. Additional threats to the species include hybridization with non-native tiger
salamanders, predation by and competition with non-native species, and vehicle-strike mortality.
Other potential threats include contaminants, disease, and climate change. A majority of the
known California tiger salamander occurrences in Santa Barbara County currently occur on
private lands, requiring continual coordination with multiple private and local government
entities for management.
Recovery Strategy
The strategy to recover the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander focuses on
alleviating the threat of habitat loss and fragmentation in order to increase population resiliency
(ensure a large enough metapopulation to withstand stochastic events) and redundancy (a
sufficient number of metapopulations to ensure the species can withstand catastrophic events).
Recovery of this species can be achieved by addressing the conservation of remaining aquatic
and upland habitat that provides essential connectivity, reduces fragmentation, and sufficiently
buffers against encroaching development. Appropriate management of these areas would also
reduce mortality by addressing non-habitat related threats. Research and monitoring should be
undertaken to determine the extent of other threats and reduce them to the extent possible,
including those from non-native and hybrid tiger salamanders, other non-native species, and
vehicle-strike mortality.
Recovery Goal and Objectives
The goal of this recovery plan is to reduce the threats to the Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander to ensure its long-term viability in the wild, and allow for its removal from the
list of threatened and endangered species. The interim goal is to recover the population to the
point that it can be downlisted from endangered to threatened status. The recovery objectives of
the plan are:
iv
1. Protect and manage sufficient habitat within the metapopulation areas to support long-term
viability of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
2. Reduce or remove other threats to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Recovery Criteria
Downlisting may be warranted when the recovery criteria below have been met in a sufficient
number of metapopulation areas such that the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander
exhibits increased resiliency and redundancy to prevent endangerment in the foreseeable future.
Delisting may be warranted when the following recovery criteria have been met in a sufficient
number of metapopulation areas to support long-term viability of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander:
1. At least four functional breeding ponds are in fully preserved status per metapopulation
area.
2. A minimum of 623 acres (252 hectares) of functional upland habitat around each
preserved pond is in fully preserved status.
3. Adjacent to the fully preserved ponds and fully preserved upland habitat, a minimum of
1,628 acres (659 hectares) of additional contiguous, functional upland habitat is present,
which is at least 50 percent unfragmented and partially preserved.
4. Effective population size (N
e
) in the metapopulation shows an overall positive trend
across 10 years.
5. Management is implemented to maintain the preserved ponds free of non-native predators
and competitors (e.g., bullfrogs and fish).
6. Risk of introduction and spread of non-native genotypes is reduced to a level that does not
inhibit normal recruitment and protects genetic diversity within and among metapopulations.
Actions Needed
The actions identified below are those that we believe are necessary to bring about the recovery
of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
1. Protect and manage habitat.
2. Restore and maintain habitat, reduce vehicle-strike mortalities, and reduce barriers to
dispersal.
3. Reduce and remove threats from non-native species.
4. Prevent and reduce the potential for the transmission of disease.
5. Conduct research on threats.
6. Undertake activities in support of developing and implementing management and monitoring
plans.
7. Foster collaboration and cooperation through education, outreach, and regular meetings.
Estimated Date and Cost of Recovery
Date of recovery: If recovery actions are implemented promptly and are effective, recovery
criteria could be met by approximately 2045.
Cost of recovery: $181,340,000
v
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v
Background ........................................................................................................................... I-1 I.
A. Overview ........................................................................................................................... I-1
B. Species Description and Taxonomy .................................................................................. I-1
C. Distribution ....................................................................................................................... I-2
D. Abundance and Population Trends ................................................................................... I-4
E. Habitat Characteristics ...................................................................................................... I-5
F. Life History and Ecology .................................................................................................. I-6
G. Reasons for Listing and Continued Threats ...................................................................... I-8
FACTOR A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or
Range .................................................................................................................................... I-8
FACTOR B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes .............................................................................................................................. I-11
FACTOR C: Disease or Predation ...................................................................................... I-11
FACTOR D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms .......................................... I-13
FACTOR E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence ....... I-16
H. Past Conservation Efforts ............................................................................................... I-19
Recovery Program .............................................................................................................. II-1 II.
A. Recovery Priority Number .............................................................................................. II-1
B. Recovery Strategy ........................................................................................................... II-1
C. Recovery Goal ................................................................................................................ II-2
D. Recovery Objectives and Criteria ................................................................................... II-2
Recovery Action Narrative ............................................................................................ III-1 III.
Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................... IV-1 IV.
References Cited ................................................................................................................. V-1 V.
vi
Appendices ..................................................................................................................... VI-1 VI.
Appendix A. Pond buffer area and minimum viable population size estimates (Searcy in litt.
2014) ...................................................................................................................................... VI-1
Appendix B. Monitoring Effective Population Size (N
e
) in the Santa Barbara County
California Tiger Salamander .................................................................................................. VI-3
Appendix C. The Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force Fieldwork Code of Practice
(DAPTF 1998) ....................................................................................................................... VI-6
Appendix D. Metapopulation Maps ....................................................................................... VI-7
Appendix E. Summary of Public Comments and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responses on
the Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger
salamander ........................................................................................................................... VI-13
List of Tables
Table 1. Metapopulations of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger
salamander. ........................................................................................................................... I-4
List of Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of California Tiger Salamanders: Santa Barbara Population. ........... I-3
Figure 2. West Santa Maria/Orcutt Metapopulation Area. ................................................ VI-7
Figure 3. East Santa Maria Metapopulation Area .............................................................. VI-8
Figure 4. West Los Alamos/Careaga Metapopulation Area. ............................................. VI-9
Figure 5. East Los Alamos Metapopulation Area. ........................................................... VI-10
Figure 6. Purisima Metapopulation Area. ........................................................................ VI-11
Figure 7. Santa Rita Metapopulation Area. ..................................................................... VI-12
I-1
Background I.
A. Overview
All California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) are federally listed; however, they
are listed as three unique entities, or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs): the Sonoma County
DPS of California tiger salamander, the Santa Barbara County DPS of California tiger
salamander, and Central DPS of California tiger salamander. When listing a population as a DPS
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (USFWS 1973), as amended (Act), three elements are
considered: (1) the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the
species to which it belongs, (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs, and (3) the population segment’s conservation status in relation to the Act’s
standards for listing (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996).
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), emergency listed the Santa Barbara County
DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered under the Act on January 19, 2000
(USFWS 2000a). The final listing rule for the DPS was subsequently published on September
21, 2000 (USFWS 2000b). On May 23, 2003, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register to list the Central California DPS as threatened and reclassify the Santa Barbara and
Sonoma County DPSs from endangered to threatened, as well as a proposed rule pursuant to
section 4(d) of the Act to exempt routine ranching activities from the Act’s prohibitions (USFWS
2003). On August 4, 2004, we published the final rule that listed the California tiger salamander
as a single threatened species rangewide rather than three separate DPSs (USFWS 2004a). This
rule was subsequently vacated by a judicial decision on August 19, 2005, and the Santa Barbara
County DPS was reinstated and returned to endangered status. As a result, the listed entity for
this recovery plan is the endangered Santa Barbara County DPS, as determined by the September
21, 2000 listing rule (USFWS 2000b). In 2004, we designated critical habitat for the Santa
Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander, consisting of six units totaling 7,491
acres (USFWS 2004b). The California tiger salamander is listed as a single entity by the State of
California throughout its range as a threatened species (California Code of Regulations, 2010).
We finalized a 5-year review for the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander on
November 13, 2009 (USFWS 2009), and the DPS was re-assigned a recovery priority number of
3C (from 5C), indicating that the DPS has a high potential for recovery, a high degree of threat,
and is in conflict with construction or development (USFWS 1983).
The following discussion summarizes characteristics of California tiger salamander biology,
distribution, habitat requirements, population status, and threats that are most relevant to Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander recovery. Additional information is available in
USFWS (2000a, b, 2003, 2009), Trenham (2000, 2001), Trenham et al. (2001), Shaffer et al.
(2004), Trenham and Shaffer (2005), Wang et al. (2009), Searcy and Shaffer (2011), Searcy et
al. (2013), and associated literature.
B. Species Description and Taxonomy
The California tiger salamander is a member of the group of mole salamanders (Family
Ambystomatidae). It is a large, stocky, terrestrial salamander with a broad, rounded snout; adult
I-2
total lengths can range from 6 to 10.5 inches (15 to 22 centimeters) (Storer 1925, Searcy and
Shaffer in litt. 2015). Adult coloration generally consists of random white or yellowish markings
against a black body, and larval coloration is variable, but usually pale (Stebbins 2003).
The California tiger salamander was described as Ambystoma californiense by Gray (1853) from
specimens collected in Monterey County (Grinnell and Camp 1917), and the species was
recognized as distinct by Storer (1925) and Bishop (1943), which was later confirmed with
genetic data (Shaffer and McKnight 1996, Irschick and Shaffer 1997). Recent genetic studies
also show that there has been little, if any, gene flow between the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander and other populations for a substantial period of time (Shaffer et al.
2004, 2013).
C. Distribution
The Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander is restricted to Santa Barbara
County in southern California. All known occurrences of the salamander are within the Santa
Maria Basin Geomorphic Province, which occurs between the interface of the westernmost
extent of the east-west trending Transverse Ranges (i.e., the Santa Ynez Mountains) and the
southernmost extent of the north-south trending Coast Ranges (i.e., the San Luis Range and San
Rafael Mountains). This population constitutes the southernmost range of the species (USFWS
2000b). At the time of publication of the emergency listing rule in January 2000, the Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander was known from 14 ponds. The emergency and final
listing rules acknowledged that other potential breeding ponds or pond complexes may exist, but
could not be surveyed at that time because access was restricted.
The Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander is found in six metapopulation areas: (1)
West Santa Maria/Orcutt, (2) East Santa Maria, (3) West Los Alamos, (4) East Los Alamos, (5)
Purisima Hills, and (6) Santa Rita Valley (Figure 1) (USFWS 2009). For the purposes of this
recovery plan, a “metapopulation” is defined as a set of local populations or breeding sites
among which dispersal is possible, but not routine. The “metapopulation areas” displayed on the
maps in this plan (Figure 1; see Appendix D for maps of individual metapopulations) encompass
both currently occupied, and potentially occupied suitable habitat for each metapopulation for
regional conservation planning purposes. Critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander has been designated within portions of each of the six metapopulations
(USFWS 2004b). Each of the six metapopulation areas for the Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander contain breeding ponds for the species and are described in detail in USFWS
(2009) and summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1.
Currently, there are approximately 60 known extant California tiger salamander breeding ponds
in Santa Barbara County (USFWS 2009) distributed across the six metapopulations (Table 1).
Since listing, USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) developed
guidance for protocol survey efforts (USFWS and CDFG 2003), and this guidance aided in the
detection of additional breeding ponds discovered post-listing. Several of the additional ponds
were discovered as a result of surveys conducted as a part of proposed development or land
conversion projects.
I-3
Figure 1. Distribution of Santa Barbara County California Tiger Salamanders.
Metapopulation areas encompass the general area of current occurrences and associated habitat
and outline the general areas where recovery actions will be focused. Potential Distribution
includes the general area of suitable habitat within the range of the species that is currently
occupied or has the potential to become occupied.
I-4
Table 1. Metapopulations of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander
Metapopulation
Designated Critical Habitat
Unit & Acreage of
Designated Critical Habitat
Breeding Ponds within
Metapopulations
1
Figure of
Metapopulation
West Santa
Maria/Orcutt
Unit 1 (W. Santa
Maria/Orcutt) 4,135 ac (acres)
(1,673 ha (hectares))
Figure 2
(Appendix D)
East Santa Maria
Unit 2 (Eastern Santa Maria)/
2,909 ac (1,177 ha)
Figure 3
(Appendix D)
West Los
Alamos
Unit 3 (West Los
Alamos/Careaga) / 1,451 ac
(587 ha)
Figure 4
(Appendix D)
East Los Alamos
Unit 4 (Eastern Los Alamos) /
90 ac (36 ha)
Figure 5
(Appendix D)
Purisima Hills
Unit 5 (Purisima Hills) /
1,957 ac (792 ha)
permanently protected)
Figure 6
(Appendix D)
Santa Rita
Valley
Unit 6 (Santa Rita Valley) /
638 ac (258 ha)
Figure 7
(Appendix D)
D. Abundance and Population Trends
The population size and trends of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander are
unknown due to its cryptic life history strategy and restricted access to ponds for surveys.
However, recent advances in molecular techniques have allowed researchers to measure the
effective population size (N
e
) of California tiger salamander populations (Wang et al. 2011). The
effective population size is defined as the size of an ideal population (i.e., one that meets all the
Hardy-Weinberg assumptions) that would lose heterozygosity at a rate equal to that of the
observed population (Wright 1969). Effective population size measurements can be used to
estimate size of the population and trends over time. Recent research on the Central DPS of the
California tiger salamander shows that N
e
is positively related to the area of individual vernal
pools; however, no relationship was found with the area of stock ponds (Wang et al. 2011,
Shaffer et al. 2013). This suggests that larger vernal pools are more valuable for the conservation
of the species than smaller ones.
California tiger salamander breeding populations can fluctuate substantially due to random,
natural processes. At one study site monitored for seven years in Monterey County (Central DPS
of the California tiger salamander), the number of breeding adults visiting a site ranged from 57
to 244 individuals (Trenham et al. 2000). Similar work also conducted in Monterey County
showed a comparable pattern of variation, suggesting that such fluctuations are typical (Loredo
1
Number of known breeding ponds is based on USFWS 2010 known SB CTS breeding pond GIS data.
I-5
and Van Vuren 1996). Further complicating the estimation of population size is that California
tiger salamanders move between ponds (Trenham et al. 2001) or even forego breeding for 2 to 8
years (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham et al. 2000). For example, in years where rainfall
is insufficient for creating suitable breeding habitat, both males and females will forego breeding
for that year and each year thereafter for which breeding ponds do not fill with water (Jennings
2000). These tendencies can result in negative aquatic surveys despite the presence of the species
in adjacent uplands (Trenham et al. 2000, Alvarez et al. 2013).
E. Habitat Characteristics
Historically, the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander inhabited low-elevation
(generally under 1,500 feet (475 meters)) seasonal ponds and associated grassland, oak
savannah, and coastal scrub plant communities of the Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita
Valleys in the northwestern area of Santa Barbara County (Shaffer et al. 1993, Sweet 1993).
Seasonal ponds, such as vernal pools (seasonal, shallow wetlands that alternate between dry and
wet periods) and sag ponds (ponds located in depressions formed at a strike-slip fault), are
typically used by California tiger salamanders for breeding. California tiger salamanders are
rarely found in streams or rivers. Natural breeding ponds inundate for variable periods from
winter to spring, but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall. Bedrock or hard
clay layers, which help retain water, typically lie beneath these ponds. These ponds range in size
from small pools to shallow lakes; preferred ponds have depths ranging between approximately
15.75 to 31.5 inches (40 to 80 centimeters) (Cook et al. 2005).
Variation in seasonal and annual rainfall can cause dramatic changes in the size and period of
inundation of seasonal ponds. Breeding ponds typically collect water during winter and spring
rains, changing in volume in response to varying weather patterns. During a single season, they
may fill and dry several times, and in years of drought, some ponds may not fill at all. Changes
in climate can alter the amount of water and the length of time that ponds are inundated,
potentially resulting in long-term loss of ponds that are important breeding habitat (Pyke and
Marty 2005).
The area occupied by the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander has several unique
soil formations, including dune fields (e.g., Orcutt Terrace Dune Sheet), folded and faulted
ridges (e.g., Casmalia, Purisima, and Santa Rita Hills), and adjacent valleys (e.g., Los Alamos
and Santa Rita Valleys) (Hunt 1993, Ferren and Hecht 2003). The complex, geologically active
landscape of the area provides the seasonal ponds required by California tiger salamanders for
breeding.
The introduction of livestock and the associated man-made watering or stock ponds have created
various types of artificial aquatic habitat in which Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamanders breed (Sweet, pers. comm. 2009). Often these ponds are located in foothill and
upland terrain, and are created when a berm is placed in a natural drainage corridor, forming a
pond behind it. The availability of these created aquatic habitats, along with the loss of natural
vernal and seasonal pools and sag ponds, has caused California tiger salamanders to extensively
shift to using these manmade or modified ephemeral and permanent ponds in the foothills.
Whether or not this has affected patterns of upland habitat use is unknown (Sweet, pers. comm.
2009), but these ponds now constitute an important component of Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander habitat.
I-6
Terrestrial habitat for California tiger salamander is characterized by several important features.
Small mammal burrows, primarily those of the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thommomys bottae) (Loredo et al. 1996, Trenham and
Shaffer 2005), provide important habitat for California tiger salamanders during the terrestrial
part of their life cycle (Trenham et al. 2000), although the density of adult California tiger
salamanders appears independent of burrow density (Searcy et al. 2013). Vegetation type and
microhabitat within upland areas also play a role. The species may prefer drier microhabitats to
more mesic (moist) areas (Searcy et al. 2013), and less vegetation may facilitate the movement
of California tiger salamanders from upland areas to breeding ponds (USFWS 2003). For
example, studies have shown that radio-tracked adults favored grasslands with scattered oaks
over more densely wooded areas (Trenham 2001), and that movement through grassland was
twice as costly to the species (in terms of gene flow) as movement through chaparral, while oak
woodlands are the most costly for the species to traverse (Wang et al. 2009).
F. Life History and Ecology
Life Cycle
Like other members of the family Ambystomatidae, California tiger salamanders spend the
majority of their lives underground in small mammal burrows. California tiger salamanders may
also use landscape features such as leaf litter or desiccation cracks in the soil for upland refugia.
Such refugia provide protection from the sun and wind associated with a dry California climate,
which can otherwise desiccate (dry out) and kill amphibians in upland terrain.
Little is known about the fossorial (i.e., underground) behavior of California tiger salamanders as
they are difficult to observe while underground, though most evidence suggests that California
tiger salamanders remain active. Trenham (2001) recorded underground movements within
burrow systems, and other researchers have used fiber optic or infrared scopes to observe active
California tiger salamanders underground (Semonsen 1998).
Winter rain events trigger California tiger salamanders to emerge from refugia and seek breeding
ponds (Storer 1925). After mating, females attach their eggs to submerged twigs, grass stems,
vegetation, or debris (Storer 1925; Twitty 1941). California tiger salamander eggs hatch into
larvae within 10 to 28 days, (Petranka 1998; Hansen and Tremper 1993), with observed
differences likely related to water temperatures. Requiring a relatively short period to complete
development of the aquatic larvae as compared to other salamanders, California tiger
salamanders require ponds with continuous inundation periods for 70-90 days (Shaffer and
Trenham 2004). The larval developmental period can be prolonged in colder weather, commonly
in excess of 4 months (Trenham et al. 2000). After the larval developmental period, they emerge
as terrestrial metamorphic salamanders, between approximately May and August (Trenham et al.
2000).
Lifetime reproductive success of California tiger salamanders is typically low because they
require an extended amount of time before they reach sexual maturity (4 to 5 years) (Trenham et
al. 2000). Less than 50 percent of first-time breeding California tiger salamanders typically
survive to breed more than once (Trenham et al. 2000). Metamorphs also have low
survivorship—in some populations, less than 5 percent survive to breed (Trenham 1998). Thus,
isolated metapopulations can decline substantially from unusual, randomly occurring, natural
I-7
events (e.g., disease, drought) as well as from human-caused factors that reduce breeding success
and individual survival.
Metapopulation Structure and Dynamics
The California tiger salamander has a metapopulation structure. A metapopulation is a set of
local populations or breeding sites among which dispersal is possible, but not routine. California
tiger salamanders appear to have high site-fidelity, returning to their natal pond as adults and
commonly returning to the same terrestrial habitat areas after breeding (Orloff 2007, 2011;
Trenham 2001). Wang et al. (2009) studied genetic distinctness across 16 Central DPS California
tiger salamander breeding sites (Fort Ord, Monterey County), and confirmed genetic differences
at almost every site. More work is needed to determine the genetic distinctness across
metapopulations in Santa Barbara County; however, the metapopulation structure of the DPS
suggests that there would be similar genetic differences.
Migration and Dispersal
Migration is defined as movements, primarily by resident adults, toward and away from aquatic
breeding sites (Semlitsch 2008). For the adult residents using a breeding pond, migrations are
reoccurring events (often, but not always annually), round-trip, and intrapopulational (within
local populations). Dispersal is defined as unidirectional movements that are interpopulational
(between different local populations) in scale, are ultimately greater in distance than for
migrating adults, and may occur only once in a lifetime (Semlitsch 2008). A local population can
be either one pond or clusters of ponds in close proximity.
Juvenile dispersal is more common than adult dispersal (Trenham et al. 2001). Dispersing
juveniles move from natal sites to future breeding sites that are not the pond of birth and not part
of the local population. A dispersing adult moves out of the local population and/or between
metapopulations.
California tiger salamanders can undertake long-distance migrations, and can disperse long
distances as well. They have been recorded traveling the second-longest distance among
salamanders, which is also the longest of any salamander in the family Ambystomatidae
(reviewed in Searcy et al. 2013). California tiger salamanders move more readily among
breeding ponds than other members of the family, a characteristic found consistently among
different study sites (Trenham et al. 2001, Wang et al. 2011).
Many studies have recorded migration and dispersal distances by adult and juvenile California
tiger salamanders, both through radio-tracking (Loredo et al. 1996, Trenham 2001) and upland
drift fence capture (Trenham and Shaffer 2005, Orloff 2007, 2011). None of these studies were
conducted within the range of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, but are
considered to be the best available scientific information on the species. Movement of California
tiger salamanders is reviewed in USFWS (2009) and Searcy et al. (2013). In general, studies
show that adults can move 1.2 miles (6,336 feet; 2 kilometers) to more than 1.4 miles (7,392
feet; 2.2 kilometers) from breeding ponds (USFWS 2000a, Trenham et al. 2001, Orloff 2011).
Estimates differ on the proportion of a population likely to move large distances, with studies
finding that 95 percent of a population occurs within 2,034 feet (620 meters) (Trenham and
Shaffer 2005) or 1.1 miles (5,587 feet; 1.7 kilometers) (Search and Shaffer 2008, 2011, Searcy et
al. 2013, C. Searcy in litt, 2014) of a breeding pond.
I-8
Diet
California tiger salamander larvae typically feed on invertebrate prey. This includes zooplankton,
small crustaceans, and aquatic insects until the salamanders grow large enough to switch to
larger prey (Anderson 1968, Fisher and Shaffer 1996). Larger larvae consume aquatic
invertebrates, as well as the tadpoles of other amphibians such as Pacific chorus frogs
(Pseudacris regilla), western spadefoot toads (Spea hammondii), California red-legged frogs
(Rana draytonii), bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and even juvenile mice (Anderson 1968;
Trenham et al. 2000, Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). Adult California tiger salamanders can act as
lie-in-wait predators at the mouths of burrows and may eat ground-dwelling invertebrates and
small vertebrates that are attracted to burrows (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). Little is known
about the dietary habits of subterranean life stages of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander. Stomach contents of several California tiger salamander sub-adults from the Santa
Barbara County included spiders, earthworms, and aquatic insects (Hansen and Tremper 1993).
Van Hattem (2004) anecdotally reported a Central DPS California tiger salamander eating a
moth while being observed underground. Both larval and adult California tiger salamanders can
cannibalize smaller California tiger salamanders (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012).
G. Reasons for Listing and Continued Threats
In determining whether to list, delist, or reclassify (change from endangered to threatened status,
or vice versa) a species under section 4(a) of the Act, we evaluate five major categories of threats
to the species: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The following is a
summary and update of factors that supported the listing of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the
California tiger salamander (USFWS 2000a, b) and were addressed in the 5-year status review
(USFWS 2009) for the species.
FACTOR A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat
or Range
At the time of listing, we determined that loss, destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of
habitat was the primary threat to the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger
salamander, and it remains the current primary threat (USFWS 2000a, b; 2009). The ponds
available to Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders for breeding, and the associated
upland habitats inhabited by salamanders for most of their life cycle, have been degraded and
reduced in area due to agricultural conversion, urbanization, and the building of roads and
highways. Maintaining inter-pond dispersal potential (connectivity between ponds) is important
for the long-term viability of California tiger salamanders; however, the inter-pond linkages
between populations of California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County are considerably
degraded (Pyke 2005).
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Habitat loss reduces the available feeding, breeding, and sheltering opportunities required for
California tiger salamander survival and reproduction and thus lowers the carrying capacity of
the landscape and threatens the continued existence of the species. Habitat fragmentation reduces
I-9
population connectivity needed for dispersal and migration, resulting in isolation of the
metapopulations within Santa Barbara County, making them more vulnerable to small population
and stochastic effects.
Conversion of California tiger salamander habitat to intensive agricultural uses results in habitat
loss and fragmentation that threatens the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Agriculture is the foremost industry in northern Santa Barbara County, and some of the largest
agricultural operations of over 1,000 acres (405 hectares) are located in the Santa Maria Valley
(Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2007), where two of the six Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander metapopulation areas occur. Grading and leveling or deep-
ripping operations associated with agricultural conversion of uplands have destroyed ponds and
pools (Coe 1988), reducing breeding habitat and causing direct injury and mortality to larvae and
juveniles occupying the pools. Also, conversion to intensive agriculture can create permanent
barriers that can isolate California tiger salamanders and prevent them from moving to new
breeding habitat, or prevent them from returning to their breeding ponds or upland habitat.
In addition to agricultural conversion, habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from urban
development also threatens aquatic and upland habitat in the range of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander. Urban growth causes habitat loss and fragmentation as build-out
converts habitat to pavement and creates structures that inhibit normal California tiger
salamander movements. The City of Santa Maria and surrounding land is the fastest-growing
area in the County, and the population within the City of Santa Maria is forecasted to grow 35
percent by 2040 (City of Santa Maria 2006). To meet the needs of the increasing population,
several thousand acres of residentially zoned land will be needed for residences, and several
thousand more acres of commercial and industrial development (e.g., schools, parks, and other
urban infrastructure) will be needed to support the new residents. The West Santa Maria and East
Santa Maria metapopulation areas (Appendix D: Figures 2 and 3) are isolated from one another
by the cities of Orcutt and Santa Maria and U.S. Highway 101, and these metapopulations are
further threatened by continued urban growth in the area. A detailed description of the threats of
agricultural and urban development to each metapopulation of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander can be found in USFWS (2009).
Roads and highways also create permanent physical obstacles and increase habitat
fragmentation. Road construction can reduce or completely eliminate the viability of a breeding
site, and in some cases, large portions of a metapopulation. Large roads and highways represent
physical obstacles to California tiger salamanders and can prevent them from returning to their
breeding ponds or upland habitat, hinder their ability to move to new breeding habitat, and
prevent recolonization of breeding sites, significantly reducing the local breeding population
(Trombulak and Frissell 2000). A majority of Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander
breeding ponds are less than 1 mile (1.6 km) from highways or major roads (USFWS 2009). The
East Santa Maria and West Santa Maria metapopulation areas were likely one large
metapopulation in pre-settlement times, but have become isolated from one another by U.S.
Highway 101 (Appendix D: Figures 2 and 3). The Santa Rita metapopulation area is bisected by
Highway 246, and the highway is immediately adjacent to a California tiger salamander breeding
pond (Appendix D: Figure 7).
Two California tiger salamander breeding ponds in Santa Barbara County are within 0.2 mile
(0.4 km) of a railroad that runs between them, possibly reducing migration, dispersal, and genetic
I-10
interchange between the ponds. Along with the barriers created by fill that allows railroads to
cross small canyons and watercourses, the railroad tracks themselves can act as barriers to
migrating salamanders (Jones 1993) because they cannot cross over the rails and may have
difficulty moving under the tracks unless adequate burrows are present that provide for passage
underneath.
Habitat Alteration
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders are also negatively affected by factors that
alter the quality of their habitat, including: measures to control burrowing rodents; dense
vegetation, often comprised of non-native invasive species, that overtakes vernal pool habitats in
the absence of grazing; alteration of hydrology; and reduced pond water quality due to
agricultural runoff.
California tiger salamanders are strongly associated with California ground squirrel and pocket
gopher populations, as the burrows created by active colonies of ground squirrels are necessary
for the salamanders to survive (Shaffer et al. 1993, Loredo et al. 1996). Because ground squirrels
and pocket gophers are critical for burrow construction and maintenance, and therefore critical to
the California tiger salamander, rodent population control efforts are a threat to California tiger
salamander habitat quality (Shaffer et al. 1993, Loredo-Prendeville et al. 1994). Recovery of
ground squirrel populations can be very rapid through immigration from nearby populations with
high levels of reproductive success (Gilson and Salmon 1990). Once control efforts are halted,
California tiger salamander habitat can recover relatively quickly.
Although poor grazing practices can have negative impacts on California tiger salamanders,
grazing generally is compatible with the continued use of rangelands by the California tiger
salamander as long as best management practices are followed, intensive burrowing animal
control programs are not implemented, and grazing is not excessive (Jones 1993, Shaffer et al.
1993). Cattle ranching can be compatible with or beneficial to California tiger salamander
conservation (USFWS 2003) because cattle also need open grasslands and ponds. Cattle grazing
may mediate the effects of increased drying rates on vernal pools due to climate change, by
reducing vegetation and allowing for longer periods of inundation that are adequate enough for
California tiger salamanders to successfully breed (Pyke and Marty 2005). By keeping
vegetation cover low, grazing can make areas more suitable for ground squirrels (whose burrows
are used by California tiger salamanders), can facilitate the movement of California tiger
salamanders from upland areas to breeding ponds (USFWS 2003), and can allow more surface
runoff into the pool basin thereby helping to maintain water available for California tiger
salamander breeding. Exclusion of livestock grazing may also allow invasion of aquatic habitat
by non-native annual grasses and forbs within and around the bed and shoreline of the pond
(Barry 1998). In Santa Barbara County, much of the remaining vernal pool complexes and
isolated ponds with large amounts of suitable California tiger salamander habitat are currently
being grazed.
Some seasonal ponds have been converted to irrigation ponds, which are often modified or
managed in ways that reduce the quality of these pools as California tiger salamander breeding
habitat. Such modifications and management include: lining of ponds that cause changes in
substrate and water quality; pumping methods that can result in mortality of California tiger
salamander larvae; and frequent (often daily) changes in water levels that can result in
desiccation of eggs (Collins 2000). Ponds and California tiger salamander larvae inhabiting the
I-11
ponds are also subject to indirect effects of conversion to row crops such as increased siltation
and eutrophication (the process of increased nutrient input) from runoff containing fertilizers,
which reduces water quality and introduces toxins that can interfere with normal larval
development.
FACTOR B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Overutilization was not known to be a factor at the time of listing and is not considered a threat
at this time.
FACTOR C: Disease or Predation
Disease
Disease is an important causative factor in the global amphibian decline crisis (Daszak et al.
2003). Because the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander has limited genetic
variation, it is likely to be more vulnerable to unpredictable factors, including disease (Shaffer et
al. 2013). Although the exact cause of death is unknown, a possible disease outbreak was
reported by a landowner in the Los Alamos Valley who saw large numbers of dead and dying
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders in a pond (Sweet, pers. comm. 1998).
A pathogenic (disease-causing) chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dedrobatidis) (Bd), the
causative agent of the amphibian disease chytridiomycosis, has been linked to amphibian
declines worldwide (Berger et al. 1998, Bosch et al. 2001, Fellers et al. 2001, Lips et al. 2006,
Skerratt et al. 2007, Kilpatrick et al. 2010). Bd was first documented in California tiger
salamanders in Santa Clara County, California (Central DPS) (Padgett-Flohr and Longcore
2005). In a short-term laboratory study of the effects of Bd on California tiger salamanders, the
species was found to be susceptible to Bd, but did not die from chytridiomycosis infection
(Padgett-Flohr 2008). Longer-term studies are needed to determine the effects of Bd infection in
California tiger salamanders in the wild. Bd has been documented in a population of California
red-legged frogs in southern Santa Barbara County (AECOM 2009), and from Vandenberg Air
Force Base in northern Santa Barbara County (J. La Bonte et al., unpublished data). Although
chytrid fungus has not been found responsible for California tiger salamander mortality in the
laboratory conditions or the field, its potential to cause mortality or reduced fitness cannot be
ruled out (CDFG 2010). A recently discovered, salamander-specific species of pathogenic
chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), has been associated with a mass die-
off of salamanders in the Netherlands (Martel et al. 2013); however, the pathogenicity of Bsal to
California tiger salamanders is unknown, and it has not yet been detected in North America.
Although their impact on the Santa Barbara California tiger salamander is unknown, several
disease-causing agents have been associated with die-offs of closely related tiger salamanders
and other amphibian species, including: the bacterium Acinetobacter (Worthylake and Hovingh
1989); Ambystoma tigrinum virus (ATV), an iridovirus that has caused amphibian die-offs and is
lethal to California tiger salamanders (Picco et al. 2007, Picco and Collins 2008); and the water
mold Saprolegnia parasitica (Lefcort et al. 1997).
Predation
California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County are susceptible to predation by several
non-native species (Morey and Guinn 1992) such as bullfrogs, non-native tiger salamanders
I-12
(Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium), mosquitofish, other introduced fish, and non-native
crustaceans. Bullfrogs prey on California tiger salamander larvae (Anderson 1968) and have
been found in at least four California tiger salamander breeding ponds in Santa Barbara County
(USFWS 2009). Introduced predators can be indicators of ponds that are so highly disturbed that
California tiger salamanders cannot survive to reproduce successfully (Shaffer et al. 1993).
Non-native tiger salamanders from the central United States, which are known to prey on many
native amphibians, were introduced to California for fishing bait over 60 years ago (Ryan et al.
2009). Until recently, it was not known whether A. tigrinum mavortium co-occurred with native
California tiger salamanders within Santa Barbara County. Two co-occurrence sites have been
documented within the Purisima Hills metapopulation, making the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander susceptible to predation (and hybridization, see Factor E, below) by
non-native tiger salamanders.
Mosquitofish, which prey on mosquito larvae, have been widely introduced in California by
vector control agencies to control mosquitoes. Mosquitofish are also known to prey on the eggs
and larvae of many amphibian species, including the California newt (Taricha torosa) (Graf and
Allen-Diaz 1993, Gamradt and Kats 1996), California red-legged frog (Schmieder and Nauman
1993), and Pacific tree frog (Goodsell and Kats 1999). Significantly reduced survival of
California tiger salamanders has been observed in permanent ponds with high densities of adult
mosquitofish (Leyse and Lawler 2000, Loredo-Prendeville et al. 1994), suggesting that
mosquitofish also prey on eggs and larvae of California tiger salamanders. California tiger
salamanders may be especially vulnerable to mosquitofish predation due to the salamander’s
fluttering external gills, which may attract these visual predators (Graf and Allen-Diaz 1993).
Although we do not have specific presence/absence data, mosquitofish may become a more
serious threat to California tiger salamander breeding ponds within Santa Barbara County as they
are increasingly used for mosquito control. As urban areas continue to expand, the introduction
of mosquitofish into previously untreated ponds, in combination with other threats, may result in
the elimination of California tiger salamanders from these breeding sites.
In addition to mosquitofish, predation from other introduced, non-native fish threatens the
California tiger salamander. Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) are some of the fish species that have
been found in California tiger salamander breeding ponds in Santa Barbara County (Collins
2000). A number of ponds in or near occupied California tiger salamander habitat in the west
Orcutt area have been occupied by introduced fish for more than 20 years (B. Daniels, pers.
comm. 2000), likely extirpating any California tiger salamanders that may have bred there. The
distribution of the California tiger salamander in the West Los Alamos metapopulation area may
be limited by catfish (order Siluriformes) that were introduced several years ago (Sweet 2000).
California tiger salamanders are absent from a pond with introduced catfish that appears to have
suitable breeding habitat, although a pond less than 250 feet (76 meters) away that appears less
suitable for breeding, but is free of catfish, is occupied by California tiger salamanders (Sweet
2000).
Louisiana red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) may have eliminated some California tiger
salamander populations in the Central DPS (Shaffer et al. 1993, Jennings and Hayes 1994), and
have been documented in California tiger salamander ponds in Santa Barbara County (Sweet,
pers. comm. 1999).
I-13
Additionally, California tiger salamander eggs, larvae, and adults are also prey for a variety of
native species. Native predators include great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret
(Casmerodius albus), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), various garter snakes
(Thamnophis spp.), larger California tiger salamanders, larger western spadefoot (Spea
hammondii) larvae, California red-legged frogs, and raccoons (Procyon lotor) (Baldwin and
Stanford 1987, Hansen and Tremper 1993, Petranka 1998, Stebbins and McGinnis 2012).
Predation by native species is not considered a threat to the Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander; however, when combined with other impacts, such as predation by non-native
species and habitat alteration, the collective result may be a substantial decrease in population
abundance and viability and constitute a significant threat to the DPS.
FACTOR D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
In the final rule to list the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander in 2000
(USFWS 2000b), we concluded that Federal, State, and local laws have not been sufficient to
prevent past and ongoing losses of the California tiger salamander and its habitat. At the time,
these included Federal protections such as the Clean Water Act, State laws such as the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and local
protections.
The primary cause of the decline of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander is the
loss, destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat that results from human activities.
Many Federal, State, and local regulations exist that have the potential to directly or indirectly
benefit the California tiger salamander. In the past, they have had limited ability to prevent
ongoing threats to the species and its habitat (USFWS 2009). The State listing of the California
tiger salamander throughout its range in 2010 has increased regulatory consideration during
project review at the local and State levels. Applicable laws are discussed further below.
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Act, as amended, is the primary Federal law providing protection for the Santa Barbara
County DPS of the California tiger salamander. The listing of the DPS as endangered provided
the full protection of Act. Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Act have been the most relevant sections
that have provided a conservation benefit to the species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits
unauthorized taking of any federally listed endangered or threatened species. Section 3(19)
defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
2
Since the USFWS listed the Santa Barbara
2
USFWS regulations (50 CFR 17.3) define “harm” to include significant habitat modification or degradation which
actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding
or sheltering. We define harassment as an intentional or negligent action that creates the likelihood of injury to
wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are
not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The Act provides for civil and criminal penalties for the unlawful
taking of listed species. Incidental take refers to taking of listed species that results from, but is not the purpose of,
carrying out an otherwise lawful activity by a Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 9 of the Act and
Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the “take” of federally endangered and threatened
wildlife.
I-14
County DPS of the California tiger salamander in 2000, its Division of Law Enforcement has
investigated several potential violations of section 9. These incidents were primarily related to
habitat disturbance that may have resulted in the take of salamanders; however, none of the
investigations resulted in prosecution. Two resulted in settlements which included a fine and the
purchase of an easement and restoration of a breeding pond in the Purisima Hills metapopulation
area. The Act has incorporated the methods discussed below for individuals or entities to obtain
exemptions from the prohibitions of section 9 for activities that are otherwise legal.
Section 7 of the Act provides for consultation between the USFWS and other Federal agencies
for actions they fund, authorize, or implement that may affect listed species. If, as a result of
formal consultation, USFWS determines that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species, USFWS will issue an incidental take statement in its
biological opinion that provides an exemption to the section 9 prohibitions against take. Since
listing, we have conducted consultations primarily with the Army Corps of Engineers for flood
control and water supply-related projects; with the California Department of Transportation for
highway projects; with the Federal Communications Commission for construction of cell towers;
and with the Federal Aviation Administration for airport expansion and other development
projects. In general, consultations have resulted in the minimization of impacts through such
strategies as timing of projects and using best management practices; in a few cases, habitat or
conservation easements have been acquired.
Section 10 of the Act provides for the permitting of activities that are otherwise prohibited under
section 9, either through recovery permits (for example, for research that would benefit the
species) under section 10(a)(1)(A), or through an incidental take permit if such taking is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity under
section 10(a)(1)(B). Project proponents develop habitat conservation plans (HCPs) to support
their application for an incidental take permit; the USFWS reviews the HCP to ensure that the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species and that the
project proponent minimizes and mitigates the effect of any permitted taking to the maximum
degree practicable.
Clean Water Act
Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which include navigable
and isolated waters, headwaters, and adjacent wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). However, recent
Supreme Court rulings have called this definition into question. On June 19, 2006, the U.S.
Supreme Court vacated two district court judgments that upheld this interpretation as it applied
to two cases involving “isolated” wetlands. Currently, Corps regulatory oversight of such
wetlands (e.g., vernal pools) is in doubt because of their “isolated” nature. In response to the
Supreme Court decision, the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have released
a memorandum providing guidelines for determining jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
The guidelines provide for a case-by-case determination of a “significant nexus” standard that
may protect some, but not all, isolated wetland habitat (USEPA and USACE 2007). Although the
overall effect of the new permit guidelines on loss of isolated wetlands is not known at this time,
it is likely that the Corps has less authority to regulate the placement of dredged or fill material in
isolated waters than previously.
I-15
California State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The California tiger salamander is listed by the State of California as threatened throughout its
range and is protected under CESA (California Fish and Game Code, section 2080 et seq.).
CESA prohibits the unauthorized “take” (as defined in Fish and Game Code) of State-listed
threatened or endangered species and requires individuals and public agencies to obtain permits
for incidental take and fully mitigate for any adverse impacts to the species or its habitat that
result from the taking. The California tiger salamander was listed by the State in 2010; since
then, local agencies have included consideration of California tiger salamanders as a State-listed
species during review of projects they permit.
California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15065(a)(1) of CEQA requires a finding of significance if a project has the potential to
‘‘substantially reduce the number or restrict the range” of a rare or endangered plant or animal. If
significant effects are identified, the lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation through
changes in the project or to decide that overriding considerations make mitigation infeasible
(CEQA section 21002). In the latter case, projects may be approved that cause significant
environmental damage, such as destruction of habitat that supports listed or rare species.
The County of Santa Barbara is often the lead agency responsible for implementing CEQA
process for projects within unincorporated portions of the County. The conservation benefit that
is achieved for listed or rare species through the CEQA process is dependent upon the discretion
of the agency involved, and has not been consistent. For instance, although the County is
required to consider listed species when permitting development actions under CEQA, they often
defer the responsibility of CESA and Act compliance to the landowners. At times, landowners
have not contacted the USFWS, which results in many such projects being carried out without
USFWS input or awareness. Thus, these projects miss the opportunity to engage the USFWS for
recommendations in the early stages of project planning to meet project objectives as well as the
requirements of the Act.
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
Since the listing under the Act in 2000, the USFWS has worked with CDFW to prohibit the sale
of “waterdogs” (non-native tiger salamanders of the genus Ambystoma) as bait and pets. In
October of 2014, the California Fish and Game Commission passed an amendment to Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations (§ 200.31) making it clear that any possession of non-native
tiger salamanders is illegal, and removing a previous loophole that had allowed their use as fish
bait (State of California Office of Administrative Law 2014). With this recent amendment, this
regulation is no longer considered inadequate.
Local Regulations
County of Santa Barbara
The County is most often the lead agency responsible for implementing the CEQA process for
projects within unincorporated portions of the County (see CEQA discussion above). In addition,
land use planning is guided by the County’s comprehensive plan (Santa Barbara County
Planning Department 2014), along with a series of more specific Area Plans. Together, the
comprehensive plan and area plans prescribe guidelines for land use, including those for specific
I-16
elements such as conservation, environmental resources management, and open space.
Depending on how parcels are zoned for land use and how much area is affected by an individual
action, certain agricultural land conversions do not require discretionary permits from the County
of Santa Barbara (B. Gillette, County of Santa Barbara, pers. comm. 2007) and may not be
required to consider impacts to California tiger salamanders or their habitat under CEQA.
FACTOR E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
As identified in the listing rule, several other factors, including hybridization with, and
competition from, introduced species; vehicle-strike mortality; and contaminants are threats to
the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander and its aquatic and upland habitats. In
addition, we now recognize that other factors, including climate change and drought, are also
threats.
Hybridization
Larval and adult individuals of the non-native tiger salamander (A. tigrinum mavortium) were
widely sold as fish bait (waterdogs) in California during the past century, and a number of
populations of the non-native species have become established in the State, some within the
range of the California tiger salamander. Non-native tiger salamanders can have negative effects
on California tiger salamander populations through hybridization, resulting in loss of genetically
pure native salamanders (Shaffer et al. 1993, Riley et al. 2003). Non-native tiger salamanders are
present at the Lompoc Federal Penitentiary grounds in Santa Barbara County (outside of but near
the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander’s range), and a hybrid was discovered at a
site in the Purisima Hills metapopulation area in 2009, which is the closest metapopulation to the
penitentiary. The potential loss of any metapopulations of the Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander to hybridization is a serious threat.
Several studies of the Central DPS of the California tiger salamander have shown the extent of
the threat of hybridization to the species. The extent of genetic mixing between native and non-
native tiger salamanders can depend on the type of breeding habitat, as significantly more pure
native genotypes were found in one study in vernal pools as compared to artificial ponds (Riley
et al. 2003). Non-native alleles (alternate forms of a gene) typically predominate in perennial
ponds, suggesting that the life history traits of non-native tiger salamanders give them an
advantage in perennial ponds (Fitzpatrick and Shaffer 2004, 2007a). Once California tiger
salamanders and hybrids co-occur in the same environment, however, time to metamorphosis is
delayed in California tiger salamanders, eliminating their natural ability to compete based on
early metamorphosis alone (Ryan et al. 2009, 2013). Further information regarding California
tiger salamanders and hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders elsewhere in California is
available in Johnson et al. (2010 a, b, 2011), Fitzpatrick et al. (2009, 2010), and Fitzpatrick and
Shaffer (2007b).
Competition
Introduced species also can have negative effects on California tiger salamander populations
through competition (Shaffer et al. 1993). Competition with non-native tiger salamanders can
reduce metamorphic size and lengthen time to metamorphosis in California tiger salamanders
(Ryan et al. 2009), which can increase desiccation and predation risk as well as competitive
ability (Trenham et al. 2000). Therefore, when competing with non-native tiger salamanders and
hybrids in ponds, California tiger salamanders are at a distinct disadvantage (Ryan et al. 2009).
I-17
Competition from fish that prey on mosquito larvae and other invertebrates can reduce the
survival of salamanders. Both California tiger salamanders and mosquitofish feed on aquatic
invertebrates (Anderson 1968, Holomuzki 1986, Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). Large numbers
of mosquitofish may out-compete California tiger salamander larvae for food (Graf and Allen-
Diaz 1993). The introduction of other fish inadvertently (e.g., fathead minnow; P. Collins, Santa
Barbara Museum of Natural History, pers. comm. 1999), for recreational fishing (e.g.,
largemouth bass, green sunfish; Sweet, pers. comm. 1999), or other purposes may also affect
prey base, reducing survival and growth rates of California tiger salamanders.
Vehicle-strike Mortality
Vehicles on roads contribute to direct mortality of Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamanders. Salamanders are at risk of being run over by vehicles on their first dispersal as
juveniles away the pond, and on future migrations to and from the ponds for breeding,
contributing to metapopulation fragmentation through increased mortality and preventing
recolonization of sites that would otherwise be only temporarily extirpated (Trombulak and
Frissell 2000).
In the East Santa Maria metapopulation, California tiger salamanders are frequently seen
crossing Dominion, Foxen Canyon, and Orcutt-Garey Roads on rainy nights during breeding
migrations. More than 50 percent of these observations include California tiger salamanders that
are dead or dying from vehicle strikes (A. Abela et al., unpublished data). California tiger
salamanders most often impacted by vehicle strikes are migrating adults in breeding condition.
Thus, particularly in metapopulations that are already compromised by other factors, road
morality likely contributes to a decrease in population abundance and viability of the Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Contaminants
Amphibians are extremely sensitive to pollutants, such as pesticides and other chemicals, due to
their highly permeable skin, which can rapidly absorb pollutant substances (Blaustein and Wake
1990). Toxins at lower than lethal levels may cause abnormalities in larvae and behavioral
anomalies in adults, both of which could eventually lead to mortality (Hall and Henry 1992,
Blaustein and Johnson 2003). Pesticides may reduce or eliminate the prey base, increasing the
risk of starvation to California tiger salamanders. Sources of chemical pollution that may
threaten California tiger salamanders include hydrocarbon and other contaminants from the
application of chemicals for agricultural production, burrowing animal control, oil production,
and road runoff (USFWS 2009). Although there is some evidence that some amphibians may be
affected when they come into secondary contact with chemicals (such as pesticides on crops
applied to the habitat during the migration and dispersal seasons) (Sparling et al. 2001),
Davidson et al. (2001, 2002) found no significant overall relationship between upwind
agriculture and the California tiger salamander’s decline. While this indicates that long-distance
spread of agricultural pesticides may not be a significant threat to California tiger salamanders,
there is evidence that commonly used pesticides do have negative, measurable effects on
amphibians in direct contact with them (USFWS 2009).
Rodenticides, widely used in Santa Barbara County (PAN Pesticides Database – California
Pesticide Use 2005), can be absorbed through the skin and are considered toxic to fish, birds, and
other wildlife (Tasheva 1995, Salmon and Schmidt 1984). Given the permeable nature of
I-18
amphibian skin, California tiger salamanders that come into contact with rodenticides are likely
harmed.
New technologies for extracting oil from shale that underlies most of Santa Barbara County have
significantly increased the number of oil extraction operations in the county in recent years
(Santa Barbara County Planning and Development 2013). Oil and other contaminants in runoff
from roads have been detected in adjacent ponds and have been linked to die-offs of, and
deformities in, California tiger salamanders and spadefoot toads, and die-offs of invertebrates
that form most of both species’ prey base (Sweet 1993). Several known breeding ponds occur
along secondary roads and highways in northern Santa Barbara County and may be threatened by
oil and other contaminants from road runoff.
A commonly used method to control mosquitoes, including in Santa Barbara County (California
Department of Pesticide Regulation 2007), is the application of methoprene, which increases the
level of juvenile hormone in insect larvae and disrupts the molting process, causing death.
Because the success of many aquatic vertebrates (including California tiger salamanders) relies
on an abundance of invertebrates in temporary wetlands, any delay in insect growth could reduce
the numbers and density of available prey for California tiger salamanders (Lawrenz 1984-1985).
Although in one study, methoprene did not cause increased mortality of gray treefrog (Hyla
versicolor) tadpoles (Sparling and Lowe 1998), it did cause reduced survival rates and increased
malformations in northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) (Ankley et al. 1998) and increased
malformations in southern leopard frogs (R. utricularia) (Sparling 1998). Exposure to
methoprene has also been correlated with delayed metamorphosis and high mortality rates in
northern leopard frogs and mink frogs (R. septentrionalis) (Blumberg et al. 1998). Specific
studies have not been conducted on the effects of methoprene on the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander; however, the effects documented on other amphibian species and its
application in Santa Barbara County do not allow us to rule it out as a potential threat to the
species.
A bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis israeli (Bti), is also used in Santa Barbara County for
mosquito control (City of Santa Barbara 2007). Bti reportedly does not affect insects other than
larvae of mosquitoes and blackflies, but research does not indicate which insects have been
tested (Federation of BC Naturalists 2003). Its effects on California tiger salamander prey base
have not been quantified. Because of a lack of information regarding which mosquito control
methods are used and where, and about the bacterium’s effects on salamanders, the degree to
which the practices pose a threat to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander cannot
be determined at this time.
Drought and Climate Change
Climate variability, such as fluctuations between wet and dry periods, is part of natural
processes; however, climatic models suggest that much of the recent trends in climate are driven
by anthropogenic causes, and models indicate that these trends are likely to continue into the
future (Barnett et al. 2008).
Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate
warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental
drying (Field et al. 1999, Cayan et al. 2005, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014).
Climate simulations have shown that, by 2100, California temperatures are likely to increase by
I-19
2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) under a lower emissions scenario, and by up to 8.1
degrees Fahrenheit (4.5 degrees Celsius) under a higher emissions scenario (Cayan et al. 2008).
Because of the diversity of California’s landscape, however, it is unknown at this time what
effect (e.g., changes in precipitation, number and severity of storm events) increasing
temperatures will have at the local level.
Global amphibian declines have been increasingly attributed to factors resulting from global
climate change over the last decade (Corn 2005, Wake 2007, Reaser and Blaustein 2005).
Factors such as epidemic disease (Pounds et al. 2006), changes in breeding phenology (Terhivuo
1988; Gibbs and Breisch 2001; Beebee 1995), changes in environmental conditions such as leaf
litter (Whitfield et al. 2007), increased evaporation rate (Corn 2005, but see Pyke and Marty
2005), increased frequency of storm events and drought (Kagarise-Sherman, and Morton 1993)
and ultraviolet radiation (Blaustein et al. 1998) have been identified to affect amphibian
persistence. Diseases, such as the amphibian chytrid fungus, may become more virulent in
changing climatic conditions (Pounds et al. 2006). Warmer temperatures have been linked to
earlier breeding in some amphibians (Blaustein et al. 2001, Beebee 1995). Changes to the
hydroperiod of ephemeral ponds due to changing weather patterns have significant implications
for the diversity of amphibians that rely on those ponds for breeding (Corn 2005). Ultraviolet
radiation has been shown to have negative effects on amphibian eggs and embryos around the
world (Blaustein et al. 1998).
While it appears reasonable to assume that California tiger salamanders may be affected by
factors resulting from climate change, it is difficult to predict how such climatic changes will
affect the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander. Because California experiences
highly variable annual rainfall events and droughts, environmental conditions for California tiger
salamander breeding and metamorphosis are not consistent. In years of drought, some
pools/ponds may not fill at all. Breeding migrations and breeding events are dependent on
weather. A lack of rain results in the temporal loss of vernal pools and can result in the
degradation of complexes of long-lasting pools that provide important breeding habitat. Droughts
may occasionally preclude reproductive success at a given pond; therefore, maintaining
connectivity between ponds is important for the long-term viability of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander. In addition to direct climatic effects on habitat, warmer temperatures
are associated with increased locomotor performance of hybrids, suggesting that increased
temperatures may translate to increased movement of the “hybrid swarm” (hybrid population
with interbreeding between hybrid individuals and its parent types) of non-native tiger
salamander alleles through the landscape (Johnson et al. 2010a).
H. Past Conservation Efforts
Species-specific Research and/or Grant-supported Activities
Most of the known and potential California tiger salamander breeding ponds and surrounding
upland habitats in Santa Barbara County occur on private lands, necessitating compatible land
stewardship from private property owners, rather than public entities that can preserve and
manage the habitat as a public resource. Through cooperative agreements, USFWS has allocated
grant money for at least two projects that have improved California tiger salamander habitat in
Santa Barbara County. One project received $4,000 for berm repair in 2006 to prevent the
sedimentation of a vernal pond, which at the time was a potential California tiger salamander
I-20
breeding pond (USFWS 2006). Since the project was implemented, California tiger salamander
breeding has been discovered at the pond. Another project was provided approximately $2,500
for the restoration of an eroding hillside, protecting a California tiger salamander breeding pond
from the threat of sedimentation (USFWS 2001).
The County of Santa Barbara led an effort to create a regional conservation strategy from March
2006 through March 2008. The USFWS participated in monthly meetings with a steering
committee to develop the plan, and the County committed staff and funding to the effort. The
USFWS allocated approximately $267,000 in habitat conservation planning funds via section 6
of the Act for this project (USFWS 2007a). The USFWS allocated an additional $10,000 for a
facilitator to build consensus among the diverse group of stakeholders working on the plan and
maintain focus on the project. The County chose to discontinue the regional plan process in
March 2008, and funds for both grants were returned to the USFWS unused (Becky Miller, pers.
comm., 2009).
In 2007, the USFWS provided $491,000, through section 6 of the Act via the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund, to purchase conservation easements over California
tiger salamander breeding ponds and their uplands at San Lorenzo Ranch, held by The California
Rangeland Trust, in the Purisima Hills metapopulation. Approximately $215,275 of this grant
was used to purchase the development rights on 539 acres (218 hectares) of potential upland and
aquatic California tiger salamander habitat within the Purisima Hills metapopulation; 60 of these
acres (24 hectares) fall within Unit 5 of the designated critical habitat for the Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander (USFWS 2007b).
In 2001, a University of California Santa Barbara student was awarded $18,146 from the
USFWS to study California tiger salamander upland habitat use at the Santa Maria Airport. This
study provided information about the dispersal habits, abundance, and upland habitat use of
California tiger salamanders in this portion of the West Santa Maria metapopulation (critical
habitat Unit 1) (Sykes 2006).
In 2009, the USFWS funded $39,000 for non-native tiger salamander eradication in Santa
Barbara County. Property access restrictions limited the number of new ponds that could be
sampled. Additionally, previously collected samples were re-analyzed with novel molecular
techniques and the regions of known and potential occurrence of hybrids and non-native tiger
salamanders were mapped (Hunt 2012).
In 2014, the USFWS awarded $137,333 to CDFW through section 6 of the Act, to conduct a
non-native tiger salamander research and control study for the region where hybridization has
been documented in Santa Barbara County. In coordination with local nonprofit organizations,
biologists will work with local landowners on properties that may be occupied by non-native
tiger salamanders and develop cooperative agreements to access the properties for hybrid and
non-native tiger salamander control.
In 2015, the USFWS awarded Washington State University $23,285 to develop an environmental
DNA (eDNA) assay for Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders.
In 2015, the USFWS awarded University of California Los Angeles $71,675 to conduct a
landscape genetics analysis to estimate historical and current effective population size and
habitat connectivity throughout the range of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander. In 2016, University of California Los Angeles was awarded an additional $78,150 to
I-21
determine the extent of terrestrial habitat movement by Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamanders, and to use those data to determine whether the extensive data available for two
independent, ecologically diverse sites at Jepson Prairie and Hastings Reservation serve as
reasonable models for Santa Barbara County.
Conservation Banking
The La Purisima Conservation Bank, located in the Purisima Hills metapopulation, was approved
by USFWS and CDFW in March 2014. This bank sells credits to offset impacts from projects
that result in the loss of California tiger salamander habitat. The habitat in the bank is protected
by a perpetual conservation easement on over 853 acres of California tiger salamander habitat
and has a funding mechanism for the perpetual management of the habitat and California tiger
salamander population within the bank (Adams 2014).
Habitat Conservation
There are three areas fully dedicated and set aside for the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander. These three properties are under formal conservation easements: 1) La Purisima
Conservation Bank (853 acres) held by The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, as mentioned
above; 2) Anderson easement (160 acres) held by The Land Trust for Santa Barbara
County/County of Santa Barbara; and 3) San Lorenzo Ranch (594 acres) held by The California
Rangeland Trust. These properties are considered to be fully preserved as defined by this
recovery plan (i.e., either: (a) owned in fee title by an agency or conservation organization; or,
(b) privately-owned lands protected in perpetuity with conservation easements). All three
properties are within the Purisima metapopulation area.
There are also three areas that entered into Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) with the
USFWS in 2004. These properties voluntarily agreed to implement adequate management plans
to benefit the salamander, but are not under formal conservation easements. They are: 1) Los
Robles Ranch (East Los Alamos metapopulation area); 2) Sainz Ranch (West Los
Alamos/Careaga metapopulation area); and 3) property owned by The Scheller Living Trust
(Purisima metapopulation area). These properties are considered to be partially preserved as
defined by this recovery plan (i.e., areas with land uses committed to being compatible with
successful growth and survival of salamanders, but not necessarily fully preserved). These
MOUs may be terminated by any party following 60 days written notification to other parties.
Other Cooperative Conservation Efforts
Rangeland experts, academia, and the Alameda Resource Conservation District recently
collaborated to produce the publication Managing Rangelands to Benefit the California Red-
Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander (Ford et al. 2013), which was partially funded by
the USFWS. This document uses the best available science to provide guidelines for managing
rangelands that support or have the potential to support California red-legged frogs and
California tiger salamanders rangewide. The document also provides suggestions for integrative
grazing management to benefit these two species while aligning with other goals for
conservation and production on rangelands.
In 2012, the USFWS issued a programmatic biological opinion to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) for activities conducted in Santa Barbara County. The biological
opinion exempts “take” of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs for
I-22
agricultural improvement projects funded by NRCS that also benefit these species. Permit
programs such as these aim to encourage private landowners to implement voluntary
conservation by streamlining the permitting process when listed species could be impacted
during the construction of a project with a net benefit to listed species.
II-1
Recovery Program II.
A. Recovery Priority Number
The most recent 5-year status review of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger
salamander changed the recovery priority number to 3C (USFWS 2009), indicating that the DPS
has a high potential for recovery and a high degree of threat. The “C” in the recovery priority
number indicates that conflict exists with “construction or other development projects or other
forms of economic activity” (USFWS 1983).
B. Recovery Strategy
The range of the Santa Barbara DPS of the California tiger salamander is naturally restricted to
Santa Barbara County in southern California. The species is further constrained by inhabiting
seasonal wetlands (such as vernal pools) that have suffered extensive destruction and
fragmentation, resulting in loss of habitat and isolation of metapopulations. The most significant
threat to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander continues to be destruction,
alteration, and fragmentation of habitat for agricultural and urban uses. Additional threats include
hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders that have been introduced to the native species’
range, predation and competition from non-native species, and vehicle-strike mortality. Finally,
other potential threats to the species include contaminants, disease, and drought and climate
change.
The strategy to recover the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander focuses on
alleviating the threat of habitat loss and fragmentation in order to increase population resiliency
(i.e., ensure a large enough metapopulation to withstand stochastic events) and redundancy (i.e.,
a sufficient number of metapopulations to ensure the species can withstand catastrophic events)
while maintaining current representation (genetic and ecological diversity). We think that
recovery of this species could be achieved through the conservation of remaining aquatic and
upland habitat that provides essential connectivity, reduces fragmentation, and sufficiently
buffers against encroaching development. Appropriate management of these conserved areas
would also reduce mortality by addressing non-habitat related threats. Habitat restoration and
creation to achieve proper functioning of some of these wetland complexes may be necessary to
ensure stable and well-distributed populations. Research and monitoring should be undertaken to
determine the extent of other threats and reduce them to the extent possible, including those from
non-native and hybrid tiger salamanders and other non-native species, vehicle-strike mortality,
contaminants, disease and climate change.
Because the majority of the habitat for Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders is on
privately-owned lands, habitat-based conservation efforts will require the cooperative efforts of
many entities, including both local agencies and private partners, and will play an important role
in achieving suitable and sustainable habitat necessary for the recovery of the species. This effort
will require extensive outreach and education programs to ensure public and private support.
This recovery strategy is intended to support and produce self-sustaining metapopulations of the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander that would maintain its geographic
distribution through habitat-based conservation efforts and the reduction of threats.
II-2
C. Recovery Goal
The goal of this recovery plan is to sufficiently reduce the threats to the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander to ensure its long-term viability in the wild and allow for its removal
from the list of threatened and endangered species. The interim goal is to recover the DPS to the
point that it can be downlisted from endangered to threatened status.
D. Recovery Objectives and Criteria
RECOVERY OBJECTIVES
1. Protect and manage sufficient habitat within the metapopulation areas to support long-
term viability of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
2. Reduce or remove other threats to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
RECOVERY CRITERIA
Downlisting may be warranted when the recovery criteria below have been met in a sufficient
number of metapopulation areas such that the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger
salamander exhibits increased resiliency and redundancy and maintained or increased current
representation to prevent endangerment in the foreseeable future.
3
Delisting may be warranted when the recovery criteria have been met in a sufficient number of
metapopulation areas to support long-term viability of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the
California tiger salamander.
4
In developing the recovery criteria, we used information and analyses obtained from California
tiger salamander researchers. Dr. Chris Searcy, University of Miami, provided an analysis and
explanation on the necessary number of ponds and upland habitat area to support minimum
viable population sizes (Appendix A). Dr. H. Bradley Shaffer, University of California, Los
Angeles, provided an analysis and explanation on the monitoring of effective population size
(N
e
) (Appendix B). We have adopted these appendices as bases for our recovery criteria.
Criteria:
1. At least four functional breeding ponds
5
per metapopulation area are in fully preserved
status
6
and managed for the benefit of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
3
We presently believe that the recovery criteria must be met in three metapopulation areas for downlisting to be
warranted; further research and monitoring should clarify the exact number of metapopulations necessary.
4
We presently believe that the recovery criteria must be met in all six metapopulation areas for delisting to be
warranted; further research and monitoring should clarify the exact number of metapopulations necessary.
5
The average size of known breeding ponds in Santa Barbara County is 1.47 acres, so four ponds with this size are
required to preserve a minimum viable population for each metapopulation based on calculations in Appendix A. In
metapopulation areas where ponds are smaller than 1.47 acres, more than 4 ponds may be needed to support the
minimum viable population size since effective population size is related to pond area.
6
Fully preserved status is either: (1) owned in fee title by an agency or conservation organization; or, (2)
privately-owned lands protected in perpetuity with conservation easements. These lands must have funding
secured for long-term management and monitoring.
II-3
salamander. The first priority is preservation of existing ponds, followed by restored or
created ponds (addresses Factor A threats).
2. A minimum of 623 acres (252 hectares) of functional upland habitat around each
preserved pond (see criteria 1) is in fully preserved status
7
. This functional upland
habitat area may overlap with the functional upland habitat around adjacent ponds
(addresses Factor A threats).
3. Adjacent to the fully preserved ponds (see criteria 1) and fully preserved upland habitat
(see criteria 2), a minimum of 1,628 acres (659 hectares) of additional contiguous,
functional upland habitat is present,
8
which is at least 50 percent unfragmented
9
and
partially preserved.
10
This additional contiguous habitat area may overlap with the
functional upland habitat around adjacent ponds (addresses Factor A threats).
4. Effective population size (N
e
) in the metapopulation (see Appendix B) shows an overall
positive trend across 10 years
11
(addresses Factor A, C, and E threats).
5. Management is implemented to maintain the preserved ponds (see criteria 1) free of non-
native predators and competitors (e.g., bullfrogs and fish) (addresses Factor C and E threats).
6. Risk of introduction and spread of non-native genotypes is reduced to a level that does not
inhibit normal recruitment and protects genetic diversity within and among metapopulations
(addresses Factor E threats).
12
7
The area of functional upland habitat (623 acres) is derived from recent estimates of area to support approximately
75% of a California tiger salamander population (Central DPS) (see Appendix A). Ideally, the 623 acres would
include all habitat within 896 meters of the breeding pond because placement of the pond in the protected area will
affect how many of the salamanders are protected.
8
The area of this additional functional upland habitat (1628 acres) supporting the 25% of the population most
distant from the pond, combined with the fully protected habitat (623 acres) supporting 75% of the population, is
estimated to support approximately 95% of tiger salamander population (see Appendix A).
9
If California tiger salamanders can select specific functional habitat, then this level of fragmentation can still
support the 25% of the population most distant from the pond. Further research and monitoring are needed to
determine the efficacy of this model (and adjust it up or down, accordingly).
10
Partially preserved lands refer to areas with land uses that are compatible with successful growth and survival of
juveniles and adults, but may not necessarily be fully protected.
11
Ten years of monitoring is required to encompass two full generational cycles (California tiger salamanders reach
sexual maturity at approximately 4-5 years) and to encompass a range of climatic and other unpredictable factors.
12
This requires early detection of non-native phenotypes (i.e., paedomorphic, breeding individuals that remain
aquatic, or hybrid-appearance individuals) and subsequent genetic assessment. Further research and monitoring are
needed to determine the level of risk from hybridization which does not threaten long-term population viability.
III-1
Recovery Action Narrative III.
The actions identified below are those that, in our opinion, are necessary to bring about the
recovery of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, and ensure the long-term
conservation of the species. However, these actions are subject to modification as dictated by
new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of other recovery actions. Each
action has been assigned a priority according to our determination of what is most important for
the recovery of the species based on the life history, ecology, distribution, abundance, and threats
(see the Background section of this document) and the following definitions of the priorities:
Priority 1: An action to prevent extinction or to prevent a species from declining irreversibly.
Priority 2: An action to prevent a significant decline of the species population/habitat quality
or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.
Priority 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.
The following Recovery Action Narrative provides details of the actions recommended to
achieve full recovery. Actions are laid out in an outline format that starts with an overarching
recovery action, and “steps down” to more specific recovery actions. The “stepped down”
actions are discrete actions that can be funded, permitted, or carried out independently.
1. Protect and manage habitat for the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander.
Nearly all populations of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander occur on
private lands. Suitable habitat for each of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander metapopulations should be secured and protected (as specified in the
Recovery Objectives and Criteria) through mechanisms such as land acquisition,
acquisition of property rights or fee title purchase (i.e. development rights), open space
and conservation easements, and conservation agreements. The presence of aquatic
breeding habitat is essential to the species, and preservation of natural vernal pools and
seasonal ponds is the highest priority, followed by preservation of man-made ponds. This
protection is necessary to prevent further declines in distribution and abundance of the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Open space and conservation easements provide a method to acquire specific property
rights needed to conserve biological resources and physical or scenic characteristics of
the land. These easements offer the landowner an economic incentive of reduced property
taxes while, in many circumstances, the landowner can continue to use the land in the
same ways as prior to the easement. Easements may be accepted by the State, cities,
counties, or nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is to preserve and protect
land in its natural condition.
When prioritizing parcels of California tiger salamander habitat for protection, we
consider not only prior use of the habitat by the species, but also current and likely future
threats to the species. Sites where major threats cannot be abated, even after placed under
protection, are of limited value for recovery of this species. Upland and aquatic habitat,
III-2
once protected, may require further management efforts, such as the retirement of a
current intensive agricultural practice, to retain habitat characteristics important for
California tiger salamander survival.
USFWS should consult with the Planning Departments for the County of Santa Barbara
and Cities of Santa Maria and Los Alamos regarding opportunities for conservation
easements and acquisition.
The following Recovery Actions will assist in the recovery of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander by protecting habitat and restoring or enhancing habitat,
reducing threats, and facilitating informed management where necessary. This will ensure
that viable metapopulations of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander are
protected throughout the species’ range.
1.1 Permanently protect Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander
breeding ponds and their adjacent uplands (see Recovery Criteria 1, 2, 3)
through acquisition and conservation easements.
13
(Priority 1)
Maintain a sufficient extent of current upland and aquatic breeding habitat
through conservation easements or other land protection. In all instances,
secure funding for long-term management and monitoring through an
endowment or other funding mechanism, and protect the species from
incompatible uses through long-term conservation agreements with
landowners. Preserve metapopulation dynamics within and between
metapopulation areas through adequate protection of aquatic and upland
habitat. The USFWS and CDFW should solicit private landowner
participation and support for recovery, establish open space or conservation
easements by the property owner, establish permanent resource management
easements, or acquire lands through fee acquisition from willing sellers.
Land purchase could be made through an existing land trust. Fee title
ownership includes obtaining all property rights. This acquisition can be
accomplished by fee, simple purchase, dedication, complete donation,
exchange, or transfer from one agency to another. The fee title method of
land preservation provides control over land use and avoids potential
problems associated with partial ownership or rights to access, water, or
minerals.
1.2 Develop management plans for protected Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander habitats. (Priority 1)
Develop management plans at each protected area of Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander aquatic and upland habitat. Include descriptions
of on-the-ground activities necessary to maintain and/or restore Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander aquatic and upland habitat.
13
Areas will be owned in fee title by a government agency or other organization and managed in a manner that
promotes Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander conservation. All sizes of conservation easements and
other acquisitions pursuant to action 1.1 will be derived from the recovery criteria.
III-3
These plans should include strategies to abate threats such as non-native tiger
salamanders, other non-native predators, small mammal eradication
programs, pesticides, and sedimentation. If new threats are identified or other
new information becomes available affecting Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander recovery, management plans should be re-
evaluated and revised so that abatement of those threats can be addressed.
USFWS should review management plans as they are being developed and
approve final management plans.
1.3 Develop a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan or Conservation Strategy
for the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Maria. (Priority
1)
The County of Santa Barbara initiated a regional conservation strategy for the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, but they discontinued
their efforts in 2008, citing insufficient resources. To ensure that lands in
northern Santa Barbara County are appropriately managed for recovery of the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, a regional HCP or
Conservation Strategy should be developed that will take into account future
effects of agricultural and urban development within the range of the Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander. This would provide landowners
with an opportunity to obtain incidental “take” (as defined in the section
3(19) of the Act) coverage for ground-disturbing activities in areas covered
by the HCP through the County or City permitting processes, while ensuring
that impacts to California tiger salamanders are appropriately mitigated. This
will also ensure that conservation areas and mitigation for impacts are
planned on a landscape scale to achieve the most recovery benefit for the
species. Such a plan must provide for adequate conservation of upland and
breeding habitat to mitigate the effects of County-permitted development on
the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander and its habitat.
1.4 Develop a Safe Harbor Agreement(s) or obtain financial incentives for
landowners to maintain vernal pools/stock ponds and associated uplands
in Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander habitat. (Priority
1)
USFWS should: work with local jurisdictions such as resource conservation
districts (RCDs) and city and county governments to inform landowners of
conservation measures that are available to them, such as Safe Harbor
Agreements for stock pond maintenance in California tiger salamander
habitat; work with landowners to develop Safe Harbor Agreements and/or
programmatic Safe Harbor Agreements, as appropriate; and assist private
landowners in their efforts to obtain economic incentives for maintaining
vernal pools and/or stock ponds and associated uplands and working towards
the recovery of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
1.5 Reduce burrowing animal control in Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander habitat. (Priority 2)
III-4
Reduce California ground squirrel and Botta’s pocket gopher eradication
efforts deemed to threaten the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander on protected lands, and other areas as feasible. Limited, localized,
small mammal eradication efforts may occur if deemed necessary for
livestock safety (such as around watering troughs or other areas determined
to have high livestock use) or flood risk management (such as along levees),
provided the eradication efforts do not decrease California tiger salamander
populations.
In coordination with the NRCS, RCDs, and Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), develop a plan to reduce the use of rodenticides in areas
within migration and dispersal distances of Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander habitat and successfully implement for a minimum of 10
years.
1.6 Manage sedimentation to protect Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander breeding ponds. (Priority 2)
Manage sediment to ensure that grading near Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander breeding ponds does not create runoff that results
in sedimentation of ponds. This should be done through the development and
implementation of sedimentation control strategies in coordination with local
jurisdictions, including the Santa Barbara County Agricultural
Commissioner, NRCS, RWQCB, and local landowners. If necessary, install
berms to halt or prevent sedimentation of ponds or other appropriate sediment
control measures.
2. Restore and maintain habitat for the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander, and reduce vehicle-strike mortalities and barriers to dispersal
from roads.
2.1 Restore and enhance Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander
habitats.
Lands managed for the benefit of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander should undertake activities to restore upland habitat of the Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander, as applicable. Such activities
include, but are not limited to, voluntary replacement of crops with native
grassland or scrub (see Wang et al. 2009) and instituting low-intensity
grazing or mowing in lieu of ground-disturbing activities such as tilling, deep
ripping, or grading.
If a breeding pond was historically ephemeral but converted through human-
caused activities to become perennial, the breeding pond should be restored
back to ephemeral to the extent feasible.
USFWS should work with private landowners, providing them with technical
assistance in the development of restoration strategies on their lands.
III-5
Although there are many opportunities for habitat restoration throughout the
range of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, we
recommend the following areas for restoration:
2.1.1 East Santa Maria Metapopulation Area (Priority 1): Restore
ponds SISQ-9E and SISQ-9W; maintain connectivity between pond
SAMA-1 (Appendix D: Figure 3) and the known Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander breeding ponds to the east,
including the creation of a minimum of three additional functioning
breeding ponds. (Priority 1)
2.1.2 Santa Rita Metapopulation Area (Priority 1): Restore upland
habitat on the south side of Highway 246 opposite of LOAL-2W and
LOAL-2E (Appendix D: Figure 7). (Priority 1)
2.1.3 Restore aquatic habitat. (Priority 1)
Restore aquatic habitat, which may involve excavation of vernal
wetlands to their former (pre-modern) size and shape, and the planting
of native grassland and vernal wetland plants.
Within protected habitat areas, the USFWS and CDFW’s decision of
whether or not sites should be restored to natural vernal wetland
habitat should be based primarily on the following criteria: (1) the
historical natural condition of the site (if possible to ascertain), and
(2) the habitat and hydrology needs of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamanders in that recovery area.
2.1.4 Restore upland habitat. (Priority 1)
Many upland areas have been heavily impacted by agricultural land
conversion. Some upland areas can be restored to improve both
dispersal and upland habitat for the Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander. This will usually involve reverting land back to
grazing and other non-ground disturbing land uses, such as passive
recreation.
2.1.5 Work with private landowners in habitat restoration efforts.
(Priority 1)
Provide technical assistance and funding to private landowners for the
restoration and/or enhancement of Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander habitat. Develop cooperative agreements with
willing landowners to protect California tiger salamander habitat on
private lands. Work with USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program and NRCS EQIP, WHIP, and other programs to provide
funding for restoration and enhancement projects to benefit Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamanders.
2.2 Manage and maintain habitat to benefit each Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander metapopulation.
III-6
2.2.1 Develop and implement habitat maintenance and land use
guidelines for Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander
breeding ponds in each metapopulation area. (Priority 2)
2.2.2 Follow grazing best management practices to prevent degradation
of Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander habitats.
(Priority 3)
Cattle grazing is the agricultural land use most compatible with Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander conservation. However,
significant disturbance can occur to vernal pool landscapes and Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamanders under poor grazing
management. Grazing species, livestock density, and time of grazing
are important items for consideration in managing for California tiger
salamander conservation
14
.
2.2.3 Evaluate the use of pesticides and other environmental
contaminants that may be harmful to Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamanders. (Priority 2)
Work with agencies and scientists to evaluate the effects of pesticides
and other chemicals frequently used in the outdoor environment that
could be harmful to Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamanders.
2.2.4 Work with local landowners and agencies in Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander habitats where agricultural
chemicals are used. (Priority 2)
Develop best-use practices for use of agricultural chemicals near
California tiger salamander habitat in coordination with USFWS,
CDFW, RWQCB, and the County of Santa Barbara. USFWS and
partners should inform private landowners and highway and road
maintenance agencies of the threat posed to the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander by the use of herbicides and pesticides
near sensitive habitats. USFWS should work with these entities to
develop guidelines to ensure protection of Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamanders and their habitat.
2.3 Reduce vehicle-strike mortality and remove or retrofit barriers to
California tiger salamander dispersal created by roads.
2.3.1. Develop and implement a plan to minimize the effects of vehicle-
strike mortality on California tiger salamanders. (Priority 1)
California tiger salamanders most often impacted by vehicle strikes
are those making breeding migrations; that is, those in breeding
14
See “Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red-legged Frogs and California Tiger Salamanders” (Ford et
al. 2013) for specific guidelines regarding livestock grazing compatible with California tiger salamander habitat.
III-7
condition. Develop and implement a plan to minimize and reduce
vehicle-strike mortality and include specific provisions for: Highway
246 (within the Santa Rita metapopulation; Appendix D: Figure 7),
Black Road (West Santa Maria metapopulation; Appendix D: Figure
2), Highway 101 in Los Alamos (West Los Alamos and East Los
Alamos metapopulations; Appendix D: Figures 4 and 5), and
Dominion and Orcutt-Garey Roads (East Santa Maria
metapopulation; Appendix D: Figure 3).
2.3.2 Install under crossings at strategic locations to reduce California
tiger salamander vehicle-strike mortality and monitor
effectiveness. (Priority 1)
Strategic locations to develop under-crossings include sites where
California tiger salamanders are frequently found crossing the road
and are killed by vehicle strikes. These localities include, but are not
limited to: Highway 246 between Buellton and Lompoc adjacent to
ponds LOAL-2W and LOAL-2E (Appendix D: Figure 7), Dominion
Road in Orcutt between Clark Avenue and Orcutt-Garey Road
(adjacent to pond TWDA-10 (Appendix D: Figure 3)), Orcutt-Garey
Road between Dominion Road and Foxen Canyon Road; Foxen
Canyon Road south from Orcutt-Garey Road to 2 miles south
(adjacent to pond TWDA-15 (Appendix D: Figure 3)), Highway 101
in Los Alamos (between ponds SISQ-3 and SISQ-2 (Appendix D:
Figure 4) and adjacent to LOAL-19 (Appendix D: Figure 5)), and
Black Road between Highway 1 and Betteravia Road. Effectiveness
of under crossings should be monitored. USFWS and CDFW should
work closely with the California Department of Transportation to
coordinate the installation and monitoring of these under crossings.
2.3.3 Restore habitat in key migration/dispersal corridors. (Priority 1)
Barriers to migration and dispersal include habitat entirely lost to
development, as well as suboptimal habitat that does not provide
adequate refuge in the form of small mammal burrows or other cover.
Such barriers could include agricultural fields. Prioritize restoration of
dispersal corridors within 5,587 feet (1,703 meters) of breeding ponds
and between breeding ponds.
3. Reduce and remove threats from non-native species.
Non-native salamanders threaten the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander with hybridization. The presence of non-native predators, particularly
fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish, also pose a threat to the California tiger salamander.
USFWS should work with its partners to eliminate or reduce populations of these
non-native species as much as possible in areas occupied by California tiger
salamanders in Santa Barbara County. As a short-term method, physical removal of
these non-native species may be most beneficial. However, proactive means of
III-8
reducing the conditions in which these non-native species thrive is a long-term
priority.
3.1 Develop and successfully implement a management plan to survey for
and control non-native and hybrid tiger salamanders. (Priority 1)
Areas of highest priority for this action include the La Purisima Golf Course
and Lompoc Federal Penitentiary. Develop a monitoring plan to ensure risk
abatement for the introduction and containment of non-native genotypes
within the range of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander
including a management plan for reducing the degree of hybridization in
areas where non-native genes have been introduced
15
.
3.2 Prevent the introduction of non-native predators into California tiger
salamander ponds. (Priority 1)
Work with landowners, State agencies, Cachuma RCD, and local agencies to
prevent intentional or unintentional introduction of non-native fish, bullfrogs,
or crawfish into Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander breeding
ponds.
3.3. Develop and implement strategies to remove non-native fish, crayfish,
and bullfrog populations from preserved California tiger salamander
breeding ponds. (Priority 1)
Develop guidance for efforts to remove non-native fish, crayfish, and
bullfrogs from California tiger salamander breeding ponds in coordination
with USFWS and CDFW. This guidance should include predator removal to
minimize California tiger salamander mortality and minimize effects on cattle
and other animals that use ponds. One possible method is to drain ponds from
August to October. If a pond is small, exhaustive sampling with a seine to
remove predators may be feasible
16
. The agencies should develop
mechanisms to streamline these efforts and reduce regulatory restrictions that
constrain efficiency in such efforts.
4. Prevent and reduce the potential for the transmission of disease in California
tiger salamander metapopulations.
4.1 Work with experts in the field of amphibian pathology/disease to develop
disease prevention strategies for the Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander. (Priority 2)
15
Pending genetic analysis, the degree of genetic introgression of a given population will remain ‘undetermined.’ If
the breeding habitat where hybrid or non-native individuals are found is adjacent to, or within, a region preserved to
meet recovery criteria, then the breeding habitat must be maintained in a manner consistent with California tiger
salamander life cycle (e.g., hydrology and absence of non-native predators left intact), except as a means of
temporary control efforts. Control or management activities will be coordinated on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the USFWS.
16
Methods for removing non-native fish and bullfrogs are discussed in Ford et al. (2013).
III-9
Include methodology on how to respond to a disease event if one were to
occur in a California tiger salamander metapopulation and how to reduce the
transmission of disease between metapopulations. Inform landowners and
local and State agencies on strategies to employ to prevent disease
transmission into California tiger salamander metapopulations.
4.2 Implement guidelines to prevent disease transmission into California
tiger salamander breeding ponds. (Priority 2)
Incorporate methods to monitor populations of California tiger salamanders
for pathogens and parasites into the California tiger salamander survey
protocol.
4.3 Follow “The Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force Fieldwork
Code of Practice” (See Appendix C) to limit the spread of disease
between individuals and populations of California tiger salamander.
(Priority 1)
5. Conduct research on threats to the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander.
5.1 Conduct a population viability analysis for the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander. (Priority 2)
Population viability analysis is a species-specific method of risk assessment
frequently used in conservation biology to determine the probability that a
population will go extinct within a specified timeframe. As monitoring data
become available from implementation of Recovery Action 6.1, a population
viability analysis for each metapopulation should be conducted.
5.2 Conduct research to develop assays for detecting California tiger
salamanders and non-native tiger salamanders from water samples using
environmental DNA (eDNA). (Priority 1)
Development of these assays and methods would enable workers to quickly
and efficiently establish the status of ponds (e.g., whether a pond is a
California tiger salamander or hybrid breeding pond); eDNA sampling would
save large amounts of effort and funds that could then be put toward
California tiger salamander conservation and recovery efforts. These assays
could also be used elsewhere within the species’ range.
5.3 Explicitly evaluate how California tiger salamanders use and respond to
compatible versus incompatible land uses. (Priority 1)
This action will allow evaluation of recovery criteria 3 and whether or not
California tiger salamanders can select specific functional habitat in a
landscape with both presumed compatible and incompatible land uses.
5.4 Conduct research on the effects of ranaviruses, B. dendrobatidis, and B.
salamandrivorans within the range of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander. (Priority 2)
III-10
This action will allow agencies to determine the extent to which these
diseases are a likely threat to the species and, if deemed appropriate, develop
viable detection, prevention, and treatment strategies.
5.5 Conduct research to determine the level of threat that contaminants pose
to Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders. (Priority 2)
Determine the level of threat that contaminants pose to Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamanders and develop site-specific plans, if necessary, to
ensure that the contaminant threat is resolved.
5.6 Conduct research on alternatives to using mosquitofish for vector
control. (Priority 2)
Alternatives include other biological control methods such as the application
of several species of bacteria (Bacillus) that kill only mosquito larvae.
Extensive research may be required to understand the implications of
introducing these bacterial species or other methods as control agents.
5.7 Conduct research and monitoring to determine level of mortality from
vehicle-strikes and evaluate connectivity within metapopulations.
(Priority 2)
6. Undertake activities in support of developing and implementing management
and monitoring plans.
6.1 Monitor effective population size (N
e
, as per Recovery Criterion 4) in
each metapopulation to track population status and determine whether
measures need to be modified or additional measures need to be taken to
protect and enhance habitat and/or reduce threats. (Priority 1)
Seek permission from private landowners or public land managers to monitor
California tiger salamander populations on their property. Follow guidelines in
Appendix B “Monitoring Effective Population Size (N
e
) in the Santa Barbara
County California Tiger Salamander.”
6.2 Determine the most effective strategies to control non-native and hybrid
tiger salamander populations. (Priority 1)
6.3 Identify potential California tiger salamander breeding ponds within its
range in Santa Barbara County and survey these ponds. (Priority 2)
These efforts will involve coordination with private landowners for access
and permission to survey these ponds. Cooperative agreements with
landowners may be necessary to accomplish this action.
6.4 Conduct biennial aerial surveys or implement other appropriate
methods to quantify the status of California tiger salamander habitat
and identify areas that have high potential for habitat
creation/restoration. (Priority 3)
7. Foster collaboration and cooperation through education, outreach, and regular
meetings.
III-11
7.1 Organize and implement a 'Santa Barbara CTS Recovery Collaborative'
including agencies and stakeholders to foster collaboration and
cooperation in recovery implementation. (Priority 1)
Develop a collaborative working group with the goal of coordinating
implementation of the recovery plan, particularly to get ponds and upland habitat
into conservation status and to control the presence of hybrids and fish (e.g.
restoration or removal) in existing ponds. Meet regularly to foster ongoing
collaboration.
7.2 Implement USFWS Schoolyard Habitat Program at schools within the
range of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
(Priority 3)
A USFWS Schoolyard Habitat project is a naturalized habitat area that is
created by students, for students. The area is designed to be ecologically
sound and provide habitat for local native plant and wildlife species. The
habitat area acts as an outdoor classroom for students, is integrated into the
curriculum, and is designed to encourage long-term stewardship. Schoolyard
Habitat Programs within the range of the California tiger salamander would
aim to educate children about the species and its habitat.
7.3 Conduct public outreach to foster collaboration, including public
awareness about the biology and threats to the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander. (Priority 3)
IV-1
Implementation Schedule IV.
The following implementation schedule outlines actions and estimated costs for this recovery
plan. It is a guide for meeting the objectives discussed in Chapter II. This schedule prioritizes
actions, provides an estimated timetable for performance of actions, indicates the responsible
parties, and estimates costs of performing actions. Cost estimates are provided for the entire
recovery period (estimated to be 30 years). These actions, when accomplished, should further the
recovery and conservation of the listed species.
Key to Terms and Acronyms Used in the Implementation Schedule:
Priority numbers are defined per USFWS policy (USFWS 1983) as:
Priority 1: An action taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining
irreversibly.
Priority 2: An action taken to prevent a significant decline in the species population/habitat
quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.
Priority 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.
Definition of Action Durations:
Number: The predicted duration of the action in years.
Continual: An action that is not currently underway but will be implemented on a routine
basis, once initiated.
Ongoing: An action that is currently being implemented and will continue until action is no
longer necessary.
Unknown: Either action duration or associated costs are not known at this time.
Responsible Parties:
Responsible parties are those agencies and other partners who may voluntarily participate in
implementation of particular actions listed within this recovery plan. Responsible parties may
willingly participate in project planning, or may provide funding, technical assistance, staff time,
or any other means of implementation; however, responsible parties are not obligated to
implement any of these actions. Other parties are invited to participate in the recovery of the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, as well.
ALL All responsible parties
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CRCD Cachuma Resource Conservation District
CITY City governments
CLTRNS California Department of Transportation
CNTY County of Santa Barbara
IV-2
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FBP Federal Bureau of Prisons
NGO Non-governmental organizations (e.g., The Land Trust for Santa Barbara
County, The Nature Conservancy)
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PVT Private parties
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
TBD To be determined
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UNIV University
IV-3
Action Number and Description Priority
Responsible
Parties
Duration
(years)
Total
Cost
Estimate
(in
$1,000)
Comments
1.1
Permanently protect Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander
breeding ponds and their adjacent
uplands (see Recovery Criteria 1, 2,
3) through acquisition and
conservation easements
1
CDFW,
CNTY, CITY,
PVT, TBD,
USFWS
20 172,440
The amount in the table is the
total cost for all six
metapopulation areas. This
figure is based on 5,748
acres
17
being placed into
easements per metapopulation
area, at an approximate
easement cost of
$5,000/acre
18
= $28,740,000
per metapopulation.
1.2
Develop management plans for
protected California tiger
salamander habitats
1
CDFW,
CRCD,
USFWS,
TBD, PVT,
NRCS
10 250
$25,000/year for 10 years
17
Using the average Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander breeding pond size (1.47 acres), 4 ponds per metapopulation area would need be
necessary to support a minimum viable population size (Searcy et al. 2014; Recovery Criterion 1). An estimated 95% of the salamander population will be
encompassed in 2,251 acres around each pond: 623 acres in permanent protection and 1,628 acres sufficiently unfragmented
constituting no less than 50% of the
adjoining area (Recovery Criteria 2 and 3). Therefore, we estimate approximately 1,437 acres total would need to be preserved per pond. Assuming no overlap of
protected area among the 4 protected ponds, each metapopulation will need 5,748 acres either: (1) owned in fee title by a government agency or conservation
organization and managed for the benefit of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander; or (2) privately-owned lands that are protected in perpetuity
with conservation easements and managed in a manner that promotes the conservation of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
18
The $5,000/acre easement cost is based on an estimate of approximate easement value for a 1,000 acre parcel with development rights removed by the
easement. If the 1,000 acre parcel were grazing land only (no development rights), the easement value would be closer to $2,000 an acre. Easement values in
California tiger salamander habitats in Santa Barbara County are highly variable and depend upon individual property characteristics; price per acre values range
broadly depending on development potential and extent of grazing-only lands, from $2,500 per acre to $20,000/acre (Jim Hammock, pers. comm., 2014).
Estimates are for easement costs only; acquisition costs would be much higher. Necessary management of the protected habitat will incur additional costs per
acre as identified in management-related actions in the implementation table.
IV-4
Action Number and Description Priority
Responsible
Parties
Duration
(years)
Total
Cost
Estimate
(in
$1,000)
Comments
1.3
Develop a Regional Habitat
Conservation Plan or Conservation
Strategy for the County of Santa
Barbara and the City of Santa
Maria.
1
CNTY, CITY,
CRCD,
CDFW, NGO,
NRCS, PVT,
USFWS
3 300
3 years of development at
$100,000/year
1.4
Develop a Safe Harbor
Agreement(s) or obtain financial
incentives for landowners to
maintain vernal pools/stock ponds
and associated uplands in Santa
Barbara County California tiger
salamander habitat
1
USFWS,
CDFW,
CRCD, NGO
Continual TBD
1.5
Reduce burrowing animal control
in Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander habitat
2
USFWS,
CDFW,
NRCS,
CNTY, EPA,
RWQCB,
NGO,
Continual TBD
1.6
Manage sedimentation to protect
Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander breeding ponds
2
NRCS, PVT,
USFWS,
CDFW
Continual TBD
2.1.1
Restore and enhance Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander
habitats: East Santa Maria
Metapopulation Area
1
CDFW,
NRCS,
USFWS PVT,
CRCD
Ongoing TBD
2.1.2
Restore and enhance California
tiger salamander habitats: Santa
Rita Metapopulation Area
1
CDFW,
NRCS,
USFWS, PVT,
CRCD
Ongoing TBD
IV-5
Action Number and Description Priority
Responsible
Parties
Duration
(years)
Total
Cost
Estimate
(in
$1,000)
Comments
2.1.3 Restore aquatic habitat 1
CDFW,
NRCS,
USFWS
Ongoing TBD
2.1.4 Restore upland habitat 1
CDFW,
NRCS,
USFWS, PVT,
CRCD
Ongoing TBD
2.1.5
Work with private landowners in
habitat restoration efforts
1
CRCD,
CDFW,
CNTY, NGO,
NRCS, PVT,
USFWS
Ongoing 300
2.2.1
Develop and implement habitat
maintenance guidelines for Santa
Barbara County California tiger
salamander breeding ponds in a
metapopulation area
2
CDFW,
CRCD,
CNTY, EPA,
NGO, NRCS,
PVT,
RWQCB,
USFWS
3 TBD
2.2.2
Follow grazing best management
practices to prevent degradation of
Santa Barbara County California
tiger salamander habitats
3
CDFW,
CRCD,
CNTY,
NRCS,
USFWS
Ongoing TBD
2.2.3
Evaluate the use of pesticides and
other environmental contaminants
that may be harmful to Santa
Barbara County California tiger
salamanders
2
CDFW,
CNTY, EPA,
RWQCB,
USFWS
Ongoing TBD
IV-6
Action Number and Description Priority
Responsible
Parties
Duration
(years)
Total
Cost
Estimate
(in
$1,000)
Comments
2.2.4
Work with local landowners and
agencies in Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander habitats
where agricultural chemicals are
used
2
CDFW,
CRCD, NGO,
RWQCB,
USFWS, PVT
Ongoing TBD
2.3.1
Develop and implement a plan to
minimize the effects of vehicle-
strike mortality on California tiger
salamanders
1
CLTRNS,
CDFW,
USFWS,
CNTY, CITY
5 TBD
2.3.2
Install under crossings at strategic
locations to reduce California tiger
salamander vehicle related
mortality and monitor effectiveness
1
CLTRNS,
CDFW,
USFWS,
CNTY, CITY
3 200
50,000 per undercrossing, at 4
locations
2.3.3
Restore habitat in key migration/
dispersal corridors
1
CDFW, CITY,
CNTY, NGO,
NRCS, PVT,
USFWS
Ongoing 6000
Two key dispersal corridors
per metapopulation, $500,000
per corridor
3.1
Develop and successfully
implement a plan to survey for and
control non-native and hybrid tiger
salamanders
1
CDFW,
CRCD,
CLTRNS,
FBP, NGO,
NRCS, PVT,
USFWS
10 480
$60,000/year for 8 years
3.2
Prevent the introduction of non-
native predators into California
tiger salamander ponds
1
CDFW, CITY,
CNTY,
NRCS,
USFWS
Ongoing 100
$10,000/year for 10 years
until sufficiently protective
IV-7
Action Number and Description Priority
Responsible
Parties
Duration
(years)
Total
Cost
Estimate
(in
$1,000)
Comments
3.3
Develop and implement strategies
to remove non-native fish, crayfish,
and bullfrog populations from
preserved California tiger
salamander breeding ponds
1
CDFW,
CRCD, NGO,
NRCS, PVT,
USFWS
3 150
3 years for development of
plan; implementation would
be ongoing
4.1
Work with experts in the field of
amphibian pathology/disease to
develop disease prevention
strategies for the Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander
2
CDFW,
USFWS,
UNIV,
USFWS
Ongoing TBD
4.2
Implement guidelines to prevent
disease transmission into California
tiger salamander breeding ponds
2 ALL Ongoing TBD
4.3
Follow “The Declining Amphibian
Populations Task Force Fieldwork
Code of Practice” (See Appendix
C) to limit the spread of disease
between individuals and
populations of California tiger
salamander
1 ALL Ongoing TBD
5.1
Conduct a population viability
analysis for the Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander
2
CDFW,
UNIV,
USFWS
10 100
5.2
Conduct research to develop assays
for detecting California tiger
salamanders and non-native tiger
salamanders from water samples
using environmental DNA (eDNA)
1
UNIV,
USFWS
3 30
3 years at $10,000/year
IV-8
Action Number and Description Priority
Responsible
Parties
Duration
(years)
Total
Cost
Estimate
(in
$1,000)
Comments
5.3
Explicitly evaluate how California
tiger salamanders use and respond
to compatible versus incompatible
land uses
1
UNIV,
USFWS
5 125
5.4
Conduct research on the effects of
ranaviruses, B. dendrobatidis, and
B. salamandrivorans within the
range of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander
2
CDFW, PVT,
USFWS,
UNIV
5 50
Three years of monitoring and
two years to develop
implementation strategies,
$10,000/year
5.5
Conduct research to determine the
level of threat that contaminants
pose to Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamanders
2
USFWS,
CDFW, EPA,
UNIV, NRCS
3 TBD
5.6
Conduct research on alternatives to
using mosquitofish for vector
control
2
CDFW, CITY,
CNTY,
USFWS,
UNIV
2 20
2 years at $10,000/year
5.7
Conduct research and monitoring to
determine level of mortality from
vehicle-strikes and evaluate
connectivity within
metapopulations
2
CLTRNS,
CDFW,
USFWS,
CNTY, CITY
5 TBD
6.1
Monitor effective population size
(N
e
, as per Recovery Criterion 4) in
each metapopulation to track
population status and determine
whether measures need to be
modified or additional measures
need to be taken to protect and
enhance habitat and/or reduce
threats
1
CDFW, PVT,
USFWS,
UNIV
Ongoing 500
10 years at $50,000/year
IV-9
Action Number and Description Priority
Responsible
Parties
Duration
(years)
Total
Cost
Estimate
(in
$1,000)
Comments
6.2
Determine the most effective
strategies to control non-native and
hybrid tiger salamander populations
1
CDFW,
CRCD, PVT,
USFWS,
UNIV, PVT
5 125
5 years at $25,000/year
6.3
Identify potential California tiger
salamander breeding ponds within
its range in Santa Barbara County
and survey these ponds
2
CDFW,
CRCD, PVT,
USFWS,
UNIV
5 50
Ongoing effort for 5 years at
$10,000/year
6.4
Conduct biennial aerial surveys or
other methods to quantify the status
of California tiger salamander
habitat and identify areas that have
high potential for habitat
creation/restoration
3
CDFW,
USFWS
Ongoing 60
$5,000 twice annually,
ongoing
7.1
Organize and implement a 'Santa
Barbara CTS Recovery
Collaborative' including agencies
and stakeholders to foster
collaboration and cooperation in
recovery implementation
1
CDFW,
CRCD, CITY,
CNTY, NGO,
USFWS
10 0
7.2
Implement USFWS Schoolyard
Habitat Program at schools within
the range of the Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander
3
USFWS,
CITY
5 40
$4,000 from USFWS and
$4,000 matching from the
school per habitat (assuming 1
habitat per year for 5 years)
7.3
Conduct public outreach to foster
collaboration, including public
awareness about the biology and
threats to the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander
3 USFWS 2 20
First two years are for
development, requiring
ongoing maintenance
thereafter
Total cost to recovery: $181,340,000
V-1
References Cited V.
Adams, A.J. 2014. Banking on conservation: promoting California tiger salamander recovery in
Santa Barbara County. Fish and Wildlife News, Summer 2014. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/home/fwn/pdf/News_Su_finalfall2014.pdf (Accessed December 18,
2014).
Alvarez, J.A., M.A. Shea, J.T. Wilcox, M.L. Allaback, S.M. Foster, G.E. Padgett-Flohr, and J.L.
Haire. 2013. Sympatry in California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog breeding
habitat within their overlapping range. California Fish and Game 99:42-48.
AECOM. 2009. Results of chytrid testing for the Tajiguas Landfill reconfiguration and Baron
Ranch restoration project. Report addressed to Santa Barbara County Department of Public
Works. AECOM, Santa Barbara, California.
Anderson, J.D. 1968. Comparison of the food habits of Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum,
Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum, and Ambystoma tigrinum californiense. Herpetologica
24(4):273-284.
Ankley, G.T., J.E. Tietge, D.L. DeFoe, K.M. Jensen, G.W. Holcombe, E.J. Durhan, and S.A.
Diamond. 1998. Effects of ultraviolet light and methoprene on survival and development of
Rana pipiens. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17:2530-2542.
Baldwin, K.S. and R.A. Stanford. 1987. Life history notes: Ambystoma tigrinum californiense
(California tiger salamander): predation. Herpetological Review 18(2):33.
Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood,
T. Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2008. Human-induced changes in
the hydrology of the western United States. Science 319:1080-1083.
Barry, S.F. 1998. Managing the Sacramento vernal pool landscape to sustain native flora.
Pp.236-240 in: C. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (Eds.).
Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems. Proceedings from a 1996
Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Beebee, T.J.C. 1995. Amphibian breeding and climate. Nature 374:219-220.
Berger, L., R. Speare, P. Daszak, D.E. Green, A.A. Cunningham, C.L. Goggin, R. Slocombe,
M.A. Ragan, A.D. Hyatt, K.R. McDonald, H.B. Hines, K.R. Lips, G. Marantelli, and H.
Parkes. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population
declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95:9031-9036.
Bishop, S.C. 1943. Handbook of salamanders: the salamanders of the United States, of Canada,
and of Lower California (Vol. 3). Cornell University Press.
Blaustein, A.R., Kiesecker, J.M., Chivers, D.P., D.G. Hokit, A. Marco, L.K. Belden, and A.
Hatch. 1998. Effects of ultraviolet radiation on amphibians: field experiments. American
Zoologist 38:799-812.
Blaustein, A.R., and D.B. Wake. 1990. Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:203-204.
V-2
Blaustein, A.R., L.K. Belden, D.H. Olson, D.M. Green, T.L. Root, and J.M. Kiesecker. 2001.
Amphibian breeding and climate change. Conservation Biology 15:1804-1809.
Blaustein, A.R., and P.T. Johnson. 2003. The complexity of deformed amphibians. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 1(2):87-94.
Blumberg, B., D.M. Gardiner, D. Hoppe, and R.M. Evans. 1998. Field and laboratory evidence
for the role of retinoids in producing frog malformities. P. 6 in G.S. Casper, editor. Midwest
Declining Amphibians Conference. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 21 pp.
Bobzien, S. and J.E. DiDonato. 2007. The status of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii), and other aquatic herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District, California. East
Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Bosch, J., I. Martinez-Solano, and M. Garcia-Paris. 2001. Evidence of a chytrid fungus infection
involved in the decline of the common midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans) in protected areas
of central Spain. Biological Conservation 97:331-337.
California Code of Regulations. 2009. Title 14: Natural Resources, Division 1. Fish and Game
Commission—Department of Fish and Game. Available at:
http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/search/default.asp?RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&S
P=CCR-1000. (Accessed: August 18, 2009).
California Code of Regulations. 2010. Title 14, § 670.5, Animals of California declared to be
endangered or threatened, subdivision (b)(3)(G).
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. A Status Review of the California Tiger
Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Report to the Fish and Game Commission. Betsy C.
Bolster, Nongame Wildlife Program Report 2010-4, January 11, 2010. 57 pp + fig and
appendices.
California Office of Administrative Law. 2014. Notice publication/regulations submission.
Regulatory Action Number 2014-0829-045. Dated October 13, 2014
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2007. 2007 Annual Pesticide Use Report Indexed
by Commodity, Santa Barbara County. Available at:
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur07rep/comcnty/sanbar07_site.pdf. (Accessed: March 30,
2009).
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2014. Total pounds of pesticide active
ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2011 and 2012. Available at:
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur12rep/lbsby_co_12.pdf. (Accessed: September 9, 2014).
Cayan, D., M. Dettinger, I. Stewart, and N. Knowles. 2005. Recent changes towards earlier
springs: early signs of climate warming in western North America? U.S. Geological Survey,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California.
Cayan, D.R., E.P. Maurer, M.D. Dettinger, M. Tyree, and K. Hayhoe. 2008. Climate change
scenarios for the California region. Climatic Change 87 (Supplement 1):S21-S42.
City of Santa Barbara. 2007. Integrated pest management strategy: 2006 annual report. Available
at: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8F9F1663-400D-4C20- AE06-
V-3
364BBFB028A3/0/2006IPMAnnualReportFinalNR.pdf. (Accessed: July 20, 2009).
City of Santa Maria. 2006. Housing Element Update of the General Plan. Available at:
http://www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us/housing/Part1.pdf. (Accessed: March 31, 2009).
Coe, T. 1988. The application of section 404 of the Clean Water Act to vernal pools. Pp. 356-
358 in: J. A. Kuslen, S. Daly, and G. Brooks, editors. Urban wetlands. Proceedings of the
National Wetlands Symposium, June 26-29, 1988.
Collins, P. 2000. Report addressed to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Service. Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.
Cook, D.G, P.C. Trenham, and D. Stokes. 2005. Sonoma County California tiger salamander
metapopulation, preserve requirements, and exotic predator study. Prepared for U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. FWS Agreement No. 114203J110.
Corn, P.S. 2005. Climate change and amphibians. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation
28.1:59-67.
DAPTF (Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force). 1998. The declining amphibian
populations task force fieldwork code of practice. Froglog 27.
Daszak, P., A.A. Cunningham, and A.D. Hyatt. 2003. Infectious disease and amphibian
population declines. Diversity and Distributions 9:141-150.
Davidson C., H.B. Shaffer, and M.R. Jennings. 2001. Declines of the California red-legged frog:
climate, UV-B, habitat, and pesticides hypotheses. Ecological Applications 11:464-479.
Davidson, C., H.B. Shaffer, and M.R. Jennings. 2002. Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat
destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines.
Conservation Biology 16:1588-1601.
Fellers, G.M., D.E. Green, and J.E. Longcore. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in the mountain
yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001: 945-953.
Federation of BC Naturalists. 2003. West Nile Virus, healthy wetlands, and natural predators.
Available at: http://www.burnsbog.com/pdf/westnile.pdf. (Accessed: July 15, 2009).
Ferren, W. and B. Hecht. 2003. Hydrology and physiography of California tiger salamander
habitats in Santa Barbara County, California. Submitted to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, Ventura, California.
Fisher, R.N. and H.B. Shaffer. 1996. The decline of amphibians in California’s great central
valley. Conservation Biology 10:1387-1397.
Field, C.B., G.C. Daily, F.W. Davis, S. Gaines, P.A. Matson, J. Melack, and N.L. Miller. 1999.
Confronting climate change in California. Ecological impacts on the Golden State. A report of
the Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the Ecological Society of
America, Washington, DC.
Fitzpatrick, B.M., J.R. Johnson, D.K. Kump, H.B. Shaffer, J.J. Smith, and S. Randal Voss. 2009.
Rapid fixation of non-native alleles revealed by genome-wide SNP analysis of hybrid tiger
salamanders. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9.
V-4
Fitzpatrick, B.M., J.R. Johnson, D.K. Kump, J.J. Smith, S.R. Voss, and H.B. Shaffer. 2010.
Rapid spread of invasive genes into a threatened native species. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:3606-3610.
Fitzpatrick, B.M. and H.B. Shaffer. 2004. Environment-dependent admixture dynamics in a tiger
salamander hybrid zone. Evolution 58:200-211.
Fitzpatrick, B.M., and H.B. Shaffer. 2007a. Introduction history and habitat variation explain the
landscape genetics of hybrid tiger salamanders. Ecological Applications 17:598-608.
Fitzpatrick, B.M., and H.B. Shaffer. 2007b. Hybrid vigor between native and introduced
salamanders raises new challenges for conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 104:15793-15798.
Ford, L.D., P.A. Van Hoorn, D.R. Rao, N.J. Scott, P.C. Trenham, and J.W. Bartolome. 2013.
Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red-legged Frogs and California Tiger
Salamanders. Livermore, California: Alameda County Resource Conservation District.
Gamradt, S.C. and L.B. Kats. 1996. Effect of introduced crayfish and mosquitofish on California
newts. Conservation Biology 10:1155-1162.
Gibbs, J.P., and A. R. Breisch. 2001. Climate warming and calling phenology of frogs near
Ithaca, New York, 1900-1999. Conservation Biology 15:1175-1178.
Gifford GF, R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing on infiltration: a critical review.
Water Resources Research 14:305-13.
Gilson, A., and T.P. Salmon. 1990. Ground squirrel burrow destruction: control implications.
Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 14: 97-98.
Goodsell, J.A. and L.B. Kats. 1999. Effect of introduced mosquitofish on Pacific treefrogs and
the role of alternative prey. Conservation Biology 14:921-924.
Graf, M. and B. Allen-Diaz. 1993. Evaluation of mosquito abatement district’s use of
mosquitofish as biological mosquito control: case study - Sindicich Lagoon in Briones
Regional Park. Unpublished manuscript. 22 pp.
Gray, 1853. Ambystoma californiense. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1853:
pl.7. Monterey, California.
Grinnell, J. and C.L. Camp. 1917. A distributional list of the amphibians and reptiles of
California. University of California Publications in Zoology 17:127-208.
Hall, R.J. and P.F. Henry. 1992. Assessing effects of pesticides on amphibians and reptiles:
status and needs. Herpetological Journal 2:65-71.
Hansen, R.W. and R.L. Tremper. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles of central California. California
Natural History Guides. University of California Press, Berkeley. 11 pp.
Holomuzki, J.R. 1986. Intraspecific predation and habitat use by tiger salamanders (Ambystoma
tigrinum nebulosum). Journal of Herpetology 20:439-441.
Hunt, L.E. 1993. Origin, maintenance, and land use of aeolian sand dunes in the Santa Maria
Basin. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, San Luis Obispo, California. 72 pp.
Hunt, L.E. 2012. Status and evaluation of non-native tiger salamander introductions in Santa
V-5
Barbara County, California. Final report. 29 pp. + appendices.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D.
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S.
Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.
Irschick, D.J., and H.B. Shaffer. 1997. The polytypic species revisited: morphological
differentiation among tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) (Amphibia: Caudata).
Herpetologica 53:30-49.
Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in
California. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game. Pp. 12-16.
Johnson, J.R., B.M. Fitzpatrick, and H.B. Shaffer. 2010a. Retention of low-fitness genotypes
over six decades of admixture between native and introduced tiger salamanders. BMC
Evolutionary Biology 10.
Johnson, J.R., B.B. Johnson, and H.B. Shaffer. 2010b. Genotype and temperature affect
locomotor performance in a tiger salamander hybrid swarm. Functional Ecology 24:1073-
1080.
Johnson, J.R., R.C. Thomson, S.J. Micheletti, and H.B. Shaffer. 2011. The origin of tiger
salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) populations in California, Oregon, and Nevada:
introductions or relicts? Conservation Genetics 12:355-370.
Jones, T.R. 1993. Intraspecific genetic variation and cladogenesis in California tiger salamanders
Ambystoma tigrinum californiense Gray. Unpublished manuscript. 49 pp.
Kagarise-Sherman, C. and M.L. Morton. 1993. Population declines of Yosemite Toads in the
Eastern Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Herpetology 27(2):186-198.
Kilpatrick, A., C.J. Briggs, and P. Daszak. 2010. The ecology and impact of chytridiomycosis:
an emerging disease of amphibians. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(2):109-118.
Lawrenz, R.W. 1984-85. The response of invertebrates in temporary vernal wetlands to Altosid®
SR-10 as used in mosquito abatement programs. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of
Science 50:31-34.
Lefcort, H., K.A. Hancock, K.M. Maur, D.C. Rostal. 1997. The effects of used motor oil, silt,
and the water mold Saprolegnia parasitica on the growth and survival of mole salamanders
(Genus Ambystoma). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 32:383–388.
Leyse, K. and Lawler, S.P. 2000. Effect of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) on California tiger
salamander (Ambystoma californiense) larvae in permanent ponds. Mosquito Control
Research, annual report 2000.
Liacos, L.G. 1962. Water yield as influenced by degree of grazing in the California winter
grasslands. Journal of Range Management 15:67-72.
Loredo, I. and D. VanVuren. 1996. Reproductive ecology of a population of the California tiger
V-6
salamander. Copeia 1996:895-901.
Loredo-Prendeville, I., D. Van Vuren, A.J. Kuenzi, and M.L. Morrison. 1994. California ground
squirrels at Concord Naval Weapons Station: alternatives for control and the ecological
consequences. Pp. 72-77 in: W. S. Halverson and A. C. Crabb (editors). Proceedings of the
16th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California Publications.
Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M.L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior of the
California tiger salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30:282-285.
Martel, A., A. Spitzen-van der Sluijs, M. Blooi, W. Bert, R. Ducatelle, M.C. Fisher, A. Woeltjes
et al. 2013. Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans sp. nov. causes lethal chytridiomycosis in
amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 15325-15329.
Morey, S.R. and D.A. Guinn. 1992. Activity patterns, food habits, and changing abundance in a
community of vernal pool amphibians. Pp. 149-157 In: D.F. Williams, S. Byrne, and T.A.
Rado (editors). Endangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.
Orloff, S.G. 2007. Migratory movements of California tiger salamander in upland habitat – a
five- year study, Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates LLC. 47 + pp.
Orloff, S.G. 2011. Movement patterns and migration distances in an upland population of
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Herpetological Conservation and
Biology 6:266-276.
Padgett-Flohr, G.E., and J.E. Longcore. 2005. Ambystoma californiense (California tiger
salamander). Fungal Infection. Herpetological Review 36:50-51.
Padgett-Flohr, G.E. 2008. Pathogenicity of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in two threatened
California amphibians: Rana draytonii and Ambystoma californiense. Herpetological
Conservation and Biology 3:182-191.
PAN Pesticides Database – California Pesticide Use. 2005. Pesticide use in Santa Barbara
County in 2005, South Coast Region. Available at:
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/DCo.jsp?cok=42. (Accessed: October 3, 2007).
Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Picco, A.M., J.L. Brunner, and J.P. Collins. 2007. Susceptibility of the endangered california
tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense, to Ranavirus Infection. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 43:286-290.
Picco, A.M., and J.P. Collins. 2008. Amphibian commerce as a likely source of pathogen
pollution. Conservation Biology 22:1582-1589.
Pounds, J.A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P.L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E.
La Marca, K.L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Sanchez-
Azofeifa, C.J. Still and B.E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic
disease driven by global warming. Nature 439:161-167.
Pyke, C.R. 2005. Assessing climate change impacts on vernal pool ecosystems and endemic
branchiopods. Ecosystems 8:95-105.
V-7
Pyke, C.R. 2005. Assessing suitability for conservation action: prioritizing interpond linkages for
the California tiger salamander. Conservation Biology 19:492-503.
Pyke, C.R., and J. Marty. 2005. Cattle grazing mediates climate change impacts on ephemeral
wetlands. Conservation chytridiomycosis: an emerging disease of amphibians. Conservation
Biology 19:1619-1625.
Reaser, J.K. and A. Blaustein. 2005. Repercussions of global change. Pp. 60-63. In: M. Lannoo,
editor. Amphibian declines: The conservation status of United States species. University of
California Press, Berkley, California, USA.
Riley, S.P.D., H.B. Shaffer, S.R. Voss, and B.M. Fitzpatrick. 2003. Hybridization between a
rare, native tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and its introduced congener.
Ecological Applications 13:1263-1275.
Ryan, M.E., J.R. Johnson, and B.M. Fitzpatrick. 2009. Invasive hybrid tiger salamander
genotypes impact native amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
106:11166-11171.
Ryan, M.E., J.R. Johnson, B.M. Fitzpatrick, L.J. Lowenstine, A.M. Picco and H.B. Shaffer.
2013. Lethal effects of water quality on threatened California salamanders but not on co-
occurring hybrid salamanders. Conservation Biology 27:95-102.
Salmon, T.P., and R.H. Schmidt. 1984. An introductory overview to California ground squirrel
control. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. 11:32-37.
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. 2007. Regional growth forecast 2007.
Available at: http://www.sbcag.org/default.htm. (Accessed: October 3, 2007).
Santa Barbara County Planning and Development. 2013. Final environmental impact report:
Santa Maria Energy production plan and development plan, Laguna County Sanitation
District phase 3 recycled water pipeline, Santa Maria Energy Oil Drilling and Production
Plan. Prepared by Planning and Development, Santa Barbara County. Dated September 2013.
784 pp.
Searcy, C.A., and H.B. Shaffer. 2008. Calculating biologically accurate mitigation credits:
insights from the California tiger salamander. Conservation Biology 22:997-1005.
Searcy, C.A. and H.B. Shaffer. 2011. Determining the migration distance of a vagile vernal pool
specialist: How much land is required for conservation of California tiger salamanders? Pages
73-87 in D. G. Alexander and R. A. Scblising (Editors), Research and Recovery in Vernal
Pool Landscapes. Studies from the Herbarium, Number 16. California State University,
Chico, CA.
Searcy, C.A., E. Gabbai-Saldate, and H.B. Shaffer. 2013. Microhabitat use and migration
distance of an endangered grassland amphibian. Biological Conservation 158:80-87
Searcy, C.A., L.N. Gray, P.C. Trenham, and H.B. Shaffer. 2014. Delayed life history effects,
multilevel selection, and evolutionary trade-offs in the California tiger salamander. Ecology
95:68-77.
Semlitsch, R.D. 2008. Differentiating Migration and Dispersal Processes for Pond-Breeding
Amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:260-267.
V-8
Semonsen, V. 1998. California tiger salamander; survey technique. Natural history notes.
Herpetological Review 29.
Shaffer, H.B., R.N. Fisher, and S.E. Stanley. 1993. Status report: the California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense). Final report for the California Department of Fish and Game. 36
pp. plus figures and tables.
Shaffer, H.B., and M.L. McKnight. 1996. The polytypic species revisited: genetic differentiation
and molecular phylogenetics of the tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum (Amphibia:
Caudata) complex. Evolution 50:417-433.
Shaffer, H.B., G.B. Pauly, J.C. Oliver, and P.C. Trenham. 2004. The molecular phylogenetics of
endangerment: cryptic variation and historical phylogeography of the California tiger
salamander, Ambystoma californiense. Molecular Ecology 13:3003-3049.
Shaffer, H.B., J. Johnson, and I. Wang. 2013. Conservation genetics of California tiger
salamanders. Bureau of Reclamation grant agreement number R10AP20598, Final report
dated January 15, 2013.
Skerratt, L.F., L. Berger, R. Speare, S. Cashins, K.R. McDonald, A.D. Phillott, H.B. Hines, and
N. Kenyon. 2007. Spread of chytridiomycosis has caused the rapid global decline and
extinction of frogs. Ecohealth 4:125-134.
Sparling, D.W. 1998. Field evidence for linking Altosid® applications with increased amphibian
deformities in southern leopard frogs. Abstract, Midwest Declining Amphibians Conference,
March 20-21. Joint meeting of Great Lakes and Central Division working groups of the
Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force.
http://www.mpm.edu/collect/vertzo/herp/daptf/ mwabst.html. (Accessed: October 3, 2007).
Sparling, D.W. and P.T. Lowe. 1998. Chemicals used to control mosquitoes on refuges differ in
toxicity to tadpoles. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological
Resources. Available at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/tadnew.htm. (Accessed: July 27, 2009.)
Sparling, D.W., G.M. Fellers, and L.L. McConnell. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population
declines in California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20(7):1591- 1595.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. New York: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Stebbins, R.C. and S.M. McGinnis. 2012. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of California.
Revised Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Storer, T.I. 1925. A synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of California
Publications in Zoology 27.
Sweet, S. 1993. Report addressed to Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. University of California,
Santa Barbara, California.
Sweet, S. 2000. Report addressed to Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office regarding new localities of
California tiger salamanders as a result of studies conducted under permit [PRT- 702631].
Received on May 4, 2000. University of California, Santa Barbara, California.
Sykes, S.A. 2006. Results of California tiger salamander research conducted from 2001-2004 at
two ponds at the Santa Maria Airport, Santa Maria, California. Prepared for USFWS,
V-9
Ventura, California. Dated February 27, 2006.
Tasheva, M. 1995. International programme on chemical safety. Published under the joint
sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour
Organisation, and the World Health Organization. Available at:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc175.htm#SectionNumber:2.2. (Accessed: July
27, 2009.)
Terhivuo, J. 1988. Phenology of spawning for the common frog (Rana temporaria L.) in Finland
from 1846 to 1986. Annales Zoologici Fennici 25: 165-175.
Traill, L.W., C.J. Bradshaw, and B.W Brook. 2007. Minimum viable population size: a meta-
analysis of 30 years of published estimates. Biological Conservation 139:159-166.
Trenham, P.C. 1998. Demography, migration, and metapopulation structure of pond breeding
salamanders. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis, California.
Trenham, P.C., H.B. Shaffer, W.D. Koenig, and M.R. Stromberg. 2000. Life history and
demographic variation in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Copeia
2000:365-377.
Trenham, P.C. 2001. Terrestrial habitat use by adult California tiger salamanders. Journal of
Herpetology 35:343-346.
Trenham, P.C. 2009. California tiger salamander biology and conservation. California tiger
salamander 2009 workshop presentation. Elkhorn Slough Coastal Training Program,
Watsonville, California.
Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for
population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158-1168.
Trenham P.C., H.B. Shaffer, W.D. Koenig and M.R. Stromberg. 2000. Life history and
demographic variation in the California tiger salamander. Copeia 2000:365-377.
Trenham, P.C., W.D. Koenig, and H.B. Shaffer. 2001. Spatially autocorrelated demography and
interpond dispersal in the California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense. Ecology
82:3519-3530.
Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.
Twitty, V.C. 1941. Data on the life history of Ambystoma tigrinum californiense. Copeia 1:1-4.
USFWS. 1973. Endangered species act of 1973 (PL 93-205). – U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
USFWS. 1983. Endangered and threatened species lisitng and recovery priority. Federal Register
48:43098-43105.
USFWS. 2000a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Emergency rule to list the Santa
Barbara County distinct population of the California tiger salamander as endangered. Federal
Register 65:3096.
V-10
USFWS. 2000b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final rule to list the Santa
Barbara County distinct population of the California tiger salamander as endangered. Federal
Register 65:57242.
USFWS. 2001. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office project files, cooperative agreement number
11440-1-J005. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
USFWS. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Listing of the Centra California
Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander; Reclassification of the
Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County Distinct Populations from Endangered to
Threatened; Special rule. Federal Register 68:28648.
USFWS. 2004a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of threatened
status for the California tiger salamander; and special rule exemption for existing routine
ranching activities. Federal Register 69:47212.
USFWS. 2004b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat
for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Santa Barbara County.
Federal Register 69:68568.
USFWS. 2006. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office project files, Wildlife extension agreement
number 81440-5-J002. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
USFWS. 2007a. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office project files, Santa Barbara county MSHCP
project, (grant number E-22-HP-2). Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
USFWS. 2007b. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office project files, Purisima Hills California tiger
salamander metapopulation conservation easement project (grant number E-6-RL-3). Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
USFWS. 2009. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Santa Barbara County
Distinct Population Segment 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. U.S. Department of
Interior, Ventura, California.
USFWS and CDFG. 2003. Interim guidance on site assessment and field surveys for determining
presence or a negative finding of the California tiger salamander. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-
Guidelines/Documents/cts_survey_protocol.pdf. (Accessed: September 9, 2014).
USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of
distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register
61:4722.
Van Hattem, M.G. 2004. Underground ecology and natural history of the California tiger
salamander. Masters of Science Thesis. San Jose State University.
Wake, D.B. 2007. Climate change implicated in amphibian and lizard declines. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 104 (20):8201-8202.
Wang, I.J., W.K. Savage, and H.B. Shaffer. 2009. Landscape genetics and least-cost path
analysis reveal unexpected dispersal routes in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense). Molecular Ecology 18:1365-1374.
V-11
Wang, I.J., J.R. Johnson, B.B. Johnson, and H.B. Shaffer. 2011. Effective population size is
strongly correlated with breeding pond size in the endangered California tiger salamander,
Ambystoma californiense. Conservation Genetics 12:911-920.
Whitfield, S.M., K.E. Bell, T. Phillippi, M. Sasa, F. Bolaños, G. Chaves, J.M. Savage, and M.A.
Donnelly. 2007. Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (20):8352-8356.
Worthylake, K.M., and P. Hovingh. 1989. Mass mortality of salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum)
by bacteria (Acinetobacter) in an oligotrophic seepage mountain lake. Great Basin Naturalist
49(3):364-372.
Wright, S. 1969. Evolution and the genetics of populations, volume 2. The theory of gene
frequencies. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
In Litteris Reference
Searcy, Christopher A. 2014. Electronic mail correspondence from Chris Searcy, U.C. Davis, to
Cat Darst, USFWS, Ventura FWO, dated July 28, 2014.
Searcy, Christopher A. and H. Bradley Shaffer. 2015. Comment letter on the Draft Recovery
Plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger
Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish
and Wildlife Office, from Chris Searcy, University of Toronto Mississauga, and Brad Shaffer,
University of California, Los Angeles. Dated June 23, 2015.
Personal Communications Cited
Collins, Paul. 1999. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.
Personal communication with Bridget Fahey, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
Daniels, Brady. 2000. Kiewitt Pacific, Santa Maria, California. Personal communication with
Bridget Fahey, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura,
California.
Gillette, Bill. 2007. Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner, Santa Barbara, California.
Personal communication with Katie Drexhage, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
Hammock, Jim. 2014. Hammock, Arnold, Smith, and Company. Personal communication with
Andrea Adams, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura,
California.
Miller, Becky. 2009. Re: E-22-HP-2—Santa Barbara County MSHCP. Electronic Mail Message
to Mary Root, Conservation Partnerships Coordinator, and Andrea Adams, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California. Electronic mail accessed
October 2, 2009.
Sweet, Sam. 1998. University of California, Santa Barbara, California. Personal communication
with Bridget Fahey, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura,
California.
Sweet, Sam. 1999. University of California, Santa Barbara, California. Personal communication
V-12
with Bridget Fahey, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura,
California.
Sweet, Sam. 2009. University of California, Santa Barbara, California. Personal communication
with Andrea Adams, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura,
California.
VI-1
Appendices VI.
Appendix A. Pond buffer area and minimum viable population size estimates
(Searcy in litt. 2014)
This is a description of my newest estimate for the distance from the shoreline of a breeding
pond needed to include 95% of a California tiger salamander population.
My first step was to use the procedure described in Searcy and Shaffer (2011) to fit a repeated-
measures ANOVA that models the density of California tiger salamanders as a function of
distance from the edge of the breeding pond, while accounting for variation between the two
monitored breeding ponds at Jepson Prairie and the variation observed over the eight years of the
study (2005-2013). This entailed calculating the density of each age class of salamanders
(metamorphs, juveniles, and adults) at each distance from the pond shoreline at which we have
drift fences (10, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 850, and 1000 m). I then took a weighted
sum of these densities, weighting each age class by its relative reproductive value (1 for adults,
0.38 for juveniles, and 0.14 for metamorphs). These weightings come from an integral projection
model that I have created using recapture data from the Jepson Prairie study. These weightings
replace the weightings used in Searcy and Shaffer (2011), which were based on demographic
data from Hastings Natural History Reservation (Trenham et al. 2000). Now that demographic
data is available from Jepson Prairie, where the density distribution data was also collected, it
makes sense to use only data from this population. I fit the repeated-measures ANOVA to the
weighted sum, which represents the density of reproductive value, which values salamanders by
their probability of contributing to future population growth. The resulting function relating
density of reproductive value to distance from pond edge is: density = 5.436*e-
0.002516*distance. This function represents the density of salamanders emanating in all
directions from the breeding pond, so in order to calculate the total number of salamanders
across the two-dimensional landscape, you need to multiply by 2πr and integrate it. In this case, r
= distance+250, since a pond with an area that is the average of Olcott Lake and Round Pond
(the two breeding ponds used in the study) would have a radius of 250 meters. I then solved the
equation 0.95*Int[2π*(distance+250)*5.436*e-0.002516*distance,{distance,0,∞}] =
Int[2π*(distance+250)*5.436*e-0.002516*distance,{distance,0,x}] for x. This yields the distance
one would have to go from the breeding pond in order to include 95% of the salamander
population, which turns out to be 1703 m. This is the same approach used in Searcy and Shaffer
(2011), but the rate of exponential decay is slightly more negative (-0.002516 as opposed to -
0.002317), which yields a slightly lower migration distance. A 1703 m buffer around a breeding
pond would encompass 2251 acres, assuming that the pond was a point source. A very similar
calculation yields 504 m as the distance needed to encompass 50% of the salamander population,
which would require a 197 acre buffer area, and 896 m would encompass 75% of the salamander
population, which would require a 623 acre buffer.
The following are a few notes on the total pond area needed to sustain a viable California tiger
salamander metapopulation.
VI-2
According to Traill et al. (2007), the average minimum viable population size for a population of
herptiles is 5409 individuals. Since our equation relating pond area to population size is in terms
of effective population size, we need a conversion factor between effective and census
population size. I calculated the census number of metamorphs for Blomquist Pond, taking the
average of the six years covered in Trenham et al. (2000). I chose to base the census population
size on metamorphs, because all metamorphs should be captured each year, while a large fraction
of the juveniles and adults remain underground each year. Using the census number of
metamorphs, I then calculated the census number of juveniles and adults based on the growth,
survivorship, and maturity functions in the integral projection model developed from the Jepson
Prairie recapture data. My final calculations for the census population size at Blomquist Pond
were: 190 adults, 362 juveniles, and 397 metamorphs. Wang and Shaffer (unpublished data) give
two estimates for the effective population size of Blomquist Pond: 11 and 16. I averaged these
two values (13.5) and then divided the census population size of Blomquist Pond by this value to
get the conversion factors: adults (14.074x), juveniles (26.815x), and metamorphs (29.407x).
When calculating the minimum viable population size, I only considered adults and juveniles,
since metamorphs are not present for the majority of the year. Getting a census population size of
5409 individuals thus requires an effective population size of 5409/(14.074+26.815) = 132. The
equation relating effective population size to pond area from Wang et al. (2011) is Ne =
7.721*ln(area) – 30.999. So, in order to get the sufficient pond area with a single pond, that pond
would need to be 364,189 acres. In order to get it with two ponds, each would need to be 71
acres (slightly smaller than Olcott Lake). In order to get it with three ponds, each would need to
be 4.1 acres, which is a typical size for the playa pools at Jepson Prairie. So, in almost any
landscape, getting the sufficient pond area would require at least three ponds, which will provide
at least some redundancy in breeding sites. The average pond size in Santa Barbara County is
1.47 acres, so it would require four ponds with this size in order to get a stable metapopulation.
In order to get it with eight ponds, each would need to be 470 m
2
, and in order to get it with nine
ponds, each would need to be 370 m
2
.
Literature Cited
Trenham P.C., H.B. Shaffer, W.D. Koenig and M.R. Stromberg. 2000. Life history and
demographic variation in the California tiger salamander. Copeia 2000:365-377.
Searcy, C. A. and H.B. Shaffer. 2011. Detennining the migration distance ofa vagile vernal pool
specialist: How much land is required for conservation of California tiger salamanders? Pages
73-87 in D. G. Alexander and R. A. Scblising (Editors), Research and Recovery in Vernal
Pool Landscapes. Studies from the Herbarium, Number 16. California State University,
Chico, CA.
Traill, L.W., C.J.A. Bradshaw, and B.W. Brook. 2007. Minimum viable population size: a meta-
analysis of 30 years of published estimates. Biological Conservation 139:159-166.
Wang, I.J., J.R. Johnson, B.B. Johnson, and H.B. Shaffer. 2011. Effective population size is
strongly correlated with breeding pond size in the endangered California tiger salamander,
Ambystoma californiense. Conservation Genetics 12:911-920.
VI-3
Appendix B. Monitoring Effective Population Size (N
e
) in the Santa Barbara County
California Tiger Salamander
Dr. H. Bradley Shaffer
Distinguished Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Director, La Kretz Center for California Conservation Science, Institute of the Environment and
Sustainability
University of California, Los Angeles
For any pond-breeding amphibian, there are at least three ways to estimate population size, and
therefore population increases or decreases over time. One is to use drift fences to estimate the
number of adults or metamorphs at a site. A second is to count the number of larvae in a
breeding site at some time in the larval period. The third is to use molecular genetic techniques to
estimate the size of the population. The first two approaches return point samples of the census
population size—that is, how many individuals are actually at a breeding site at one or more
points in the life cycle. Such estimates are often expensive and time-consuming to collect and
difficult to interpret, given that only some individuals in the population breed in any year. In
particular for California tiger salamanders (CTS), we have strong evidence that in low rain years,
most individuals do not breed, whereas in high rain years, more come out to breed. This makes
the interpretation of counts within and across years difficult, since the count reflects the rain
year, the time of year when the count is done relative to breeding and metamorphosis, and the
actual census size of the population. For larval counts, it may also reflect the density of predators
(including predatory insects, introduced bullfrogs and fishes, and native birds, snakes, and other
taxa) as well as an indirect indication of breeding activity for that year.
Alternatively, one can use genetic approaches to estimate the effective population size, or N
e
.
This approach is based on sampling a reasonable number of individuals (larvae, adults or
metamorphs), estimating variation at a large number of genetic markers, and using that to
estimate the number of individuals that would have to breed at random to produce the variation
seen in that random collection of offspring. N
e
is usually smaller than the census size—in CTS
our estimates are that it is often about 10 fold less, but N
e
estimates are also very reproducible
and are correlated with the census size. In addition, N
e
is often a more accurate indication of the
total population size, rather than just the number of individuals that happened to breed in a
particular year. In that sense, changes in N
e
are a more accurate representation of population
trends than any given estimate of the census size for a given year. In addition, N
e
can be based on
non-destructive larval sampling—we need only to capture ~30-50 larvae, snip off the end of the
tail, and within a few minutes, return the larva to the point of capture. Recent experimental work
from our lab (Polich et al. 2013) suggests that under semi-naturalistic conditions there is no
decrease in survival or fitness associated with this tissue sampling, and that at least in replicated
mesocosms, larvae regrow the missing portion of their tail and metamorphose as normal-size
individuals.
To track the population increases or decreases in the Santa Barbara DPS of CTS using N
e
, we
propose using at least two different methods. The sibship assignment method as implemented in
the program COLONY (Jones and Wang 2010) uses genetic data to determine the probabilities
VI-4
of all possible pairs of samples from a population being full-sibs or half-sibs. These probabilities
are then used to determine N
e
based on an equation that relates the probability of drawing these
assignments from a randomly sampled, single cohort of larvae to the number of effective
breeding adults. The method also returns 95% confidence intervals on each estimate of N
e
. We
have applied this method to CTS in the past (Wang et al. 2011, Wang and Shaffer unpublished
data), and it returns biologically reasonable, reproducible estimates. The LDNe method (Waples
and Do, 2008) implements a linkage disequilibrium method that has been shown to be an
accurate estimate of the population size as long as a reasonable (30-60) number of individuals
and loci are used (Tallmon et al. 2010). Together the two approaches provide reasonable
estimates of the number of individuals breeding that year and the population size from which
they were drawn.
Given that individual breeding ponds have a relatively high level of random variation in breeding
success in any given year, we recommend that for each Santa Barbara metapopulation, molecular
estimates of N
e
be collected from three to five ponds per metapopulation and doing so each year
for 10 consecutive years. Simulations indicate that yearly sampling may not be necessary
(Tallmon et al. 2010), but the actual breeding of CTS is so variable and idiocynratic with respect
to rainfall and weather that it is best to obtain yearly estimates when trying to determine if
populations are increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. This sampling will span different
climate and rainfall years, allowing one to account for environmental variation when estimating
population trends. Ideally, the sampled ponds would be ecologically variable and span the range
of sites used with respect to natural vs. manmade, size/depth, and the amount of open space
around each. Sampling each year will yield the most accurate estimate of yearly variation (and
trends) in N
e
, but it is also the most expensive and time-consuming approach. Our
recommendation is to avoid a strategy that explicitly ignores drought years, since they are a
component of the biology of CTS populations, and they should be incorporated into time series
of population trends. Sample sizes of 30-50 larval tail tips for each pond should provide adequate
information on N
e
(Tallmon et al. 2010), and ideally those samples should be collected during
the late-larval period, probably in April in most years. Tissue samples should be sufficiently
large to ensure that there is plenty of tissue for multiple DNA extractions and sequencing
experiments, since the technology will almost certainly evolve and change every few years.
In the past, microsatellites were the technology of choice for this kind of work, and they still
could be used. However, simulation work indicates that the most important increases in accuracy
of Ne estimates derive from increasing the number of loci (especially if 30-60 individuals are
sampled), and microsatellites are both expensive and difficult to increase beyond a few dozen
loci at most. Recent advances in using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have led to the
widespread use of these variable, stable, informative markers, and we recommend using them for
this work. 100-300 variable SNPs should suffice for these analyses, depending on the level of
variation that exists in each population. In the past, the very large genome size (~32 billion base
pairs, or roughly 10X human) of CTS has made the collection of such SNP data technically very
difficult. However, our lab has now developed a panel of 5200 SNPs for an analysis of CTS
hybridization in central California (McCartney-Melstad et al., 2016), and we can develop a sub-
panel of this gene capture array that we can use for the Santa Barbara Distinct Population
Segment. This requires a preliminary analysis with our larger SNP panel to determine which
SNPs are most variable, and a re-design of the capture array that focuses on those SNPs that are
VI-5
segregating at high allele frequencies within the Santa Barbara population.
Both programs COLONY and LDNe return estimates of N
e
and their 95% confidence estimates,
and those estimates can be tracked over time to gain insights into trends in population size.
However, given that the 95% confidence levels for N
e
can be fairly large (about +/- 20% of the
point estimate for our work on CTS using microsatellites, see Wang et al. 2011), using these data
to determine population trends can be difficult. Of course, the same is true for population
estimates of breeding adults from drift fence studies or larval numbers from seining surveys for
pond breeding amphibians (for CTS, see Trenham et al., 2000, Searcy and Shaffer, unpublished
data). There is no simple solution for this sampling problem, as has been widely recognized by
the community for many years. In anticipation of trying to solve this problem, I have initiated
discussions with Professor Jamie Lloyd-Smith, a mathematical ecologist at UCLA, and his initial
thinking is that a mixed model that takes into account rainfall as a covariate, and the hierarchical
structure of years nested within ponds, and ponds nested within metapopulations, is probably the
way to go with these data.
Finally, all tissue samples should be archived in a stable repository where they will be well-
curated and available for future analyses.
Literature Cited
Jones, O.R., and J.I. Wang. 2010. COLONY: A program for parentage and sibship inference
from multilocus genotype data. Molecular Ecology Resources 10:551-555.
McCartney-Melstad, E., G. G. Mount, and H. B. Shaffer. 2016. Exon capture optimization in
large-genome amphibians. Molecular Ecology Resources, in press.
Polich, R. L, C. A. Searcy and H. B. Shaffer. 2013. Effects of tail-clipping on survivorship and
growth of larval salamanders. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:1420-1425.
Tallmon, D.A, D. Gregovich, R.S. Waples, C.S. Baker, J. Jackson, B. Taylor, E. Archer, K.K.
Martien, and M.K. Schwartz. 2010. When are genetic methods useful for estimating
contemporary abundance and detecting population trends? Molecular Ecology Resources
10:684–692.
Trenham, P. C., H. B. Shaffer, W. D. Koenig and M. R. Stromberg. 2000. Life history and
demographic variation in the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Copeia
2000:365-377.
Wang, I.J., J.R. Johnson, B.B. Johnson, and H.B. Shaffer. 2011. Effective population size is
strongly correlated with breeding pond size in the endangered California tiger salamander,
Ambystoma californiense. Conservation Genetics 12:911-920.
Waples, R.S. and C. Do. 2008. LDNE: a program for estimating effective population size from
data on linkage disequilibrium. Molecular Ecology Resources 8:753-756.
VI-6
Appendix C. The Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force Fieldwork Code of
Practice (DAPTF 1998)
The Declining Amphibian Task Force (DAPTF) was established in 1991 by the World
Conservation Union to address multiple conservation issue related to amphibians. The DAPTF
prepared a code of practice to provide guidelines for use by anyone conducting field work at
amphibian breeding sites or in other aquatic habitats. Observations of diseased and parasite-
infected amphibians are now being frequently reported from sites all over the world. This has
given rise to concerns that releasing amphibians following a period of captivity, during which
time they can pick up unapparent infections of novel disease agents, may cause an increased risk
of mortality in wild populations. Amphibian pathogens and parasites can also be carried in a
variety of ways between habitats on the hands, footwear, or equipment of fieldworkers, which
can spread them to novel localities containing species which have had little or no prior contact
with such pathogens or parasites. Such occurrences may be implicated in some instances where
amphibian populations have declined. Therefore, it is vitally important for those involved in
amphibian research (and other wetland/pond studies including those on fish, invertebrates and
plants) to take these steps to minimize the spread of disease and parasites between study sites:
1. Remove mud, snails, algae, and other debris from nets, traps, boots, vehicle tires and all
other surfaces. Rinse cleaned items with sterilized (e.g. boiled or treated) water before
leaving each study site.
2. Boots, nets, traps, etc., should then be scrubbed with 70% ethanol solution (or sodium
hypochlorite 3 to 6%) and rinsed clean with sterilized water between study sites. Avoid
cleaning equipment in the immediate vicinity of a pond or wetland.
3. In remote locations, clean all equipment as described above upon return to the lab or "base
camp". Elsewhere, when washing machine facilities are available, remove nets from poles
and wash with bleach on a "delicates" cycle, contained in a protective mesh laundry bag.
4. When working at sites with known or suspected disease problems, or when sampling
populations of rare or isolates species, wear disposable gloves and change them between
handling each animal. Dedicate sets of nets, boots, traps, and other equipment to each site
being visited. Clean and store them separately and the end of each field day.
5. When amphibians are collected, ensure the separation of animals from different sites and
take great care to avoid indirect contact between them (e.g. via handling, reuse of containers)
or with other captive animals. Isolation from un-sterilized plants or soils which have been
taken from other sites is also essential. Always use disinfected/disposable husbandry
equipment.
6. Examine collected amphibians for the presence of diseases and parasites soon after
capture. Prior to their release or the release of any progeny, amphibians should be
quarantined for a period and thoroughly screened for the presence of any potential
disease agents.
7. Used cleaning materials (liquids, etc.) should be disposed of safely and if necessary taken
back to the lab for proper disposal. Used disposable gloves should be retained for safe
disposal in sealed bags.
VI-7
Appendix D. Metapopulation Maps
Figure 2. West Santa Maria/Orcutt Metapopulation Area.
VI-8
Figure 3. East Santa Maria Metapopulation Area
VI-9
Figure 4. West Los Alamos/Careaga Metapopulation Area.
VI-10
Figure 5. East Los Alamos Metapopulation Area.
VI-11
Figure 6. Purisima Metapopulation Area.
VI-12
Figure 7. Santa Rita Metapopulation Area.
VI-13
Appendix E. Summary of Public Comments and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Responses on the Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the
California tiger salamander
The 60-day public comment period for the Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander was open from April 24,
2015, to June 23, 2015. Twenty three organizations or individuals provided comments on the
draft recovery plan, including 2 peer reviewers, 1 state agency, and 20 comments from the
public. Substantive information has been incorporated into the final plan as appropriate. We, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), address the comments in the following summary
organized by topic.
______________________________________________________________________________
Recovery Criteria
Comment: One commenter was unclear as to whether there is overlap allowed in the acreages
for Criteria 1 and 2 of the draft recovery plan and that the total acres needed for recovery should
be clearly stated in the plan.
Response: As stated in the draft recovery plan, the functional upland habitat area for a
pond may overlap with the functional upland habitat around adjacent ponds. 5,748 acres
is the greatest number of acres that would need to be protected in each metapopulation to
meet the recovery criteria. This 5,748 acres per pond comes from 623 acres of upland
habitat in permanent protection, plus 50 percent of the adjoining 1,628 acres (814 acres)
in an unfragmented state, which equals 1,437 acres. Therefore, approximately 4
preserved ponds per metapopulation, with up to 1,437 acres of upland habitat for each
pond in a metapopulation, equals 5,748 acres of upland habitat per metapopulation. The
total area of upland habitat needed to meet the recovery criteria for all 6 metapopulations
is up to 34,488 acres.
Comment: One commenter stated that based on Orloff (2011)'s work, the acreages proposed in
Criterion 2 are too small and should be increased in size.
Response: The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) requires the USFWS
to develop recovery plans on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available. Recent work by Searcy and others (Searcy et al. 2013) allows us to use
population estimates and migration distances to calculate the exact area around each pond
where we expect to find a particular percentage of the California tiger salamander
population.
Comment: One commenter stated that a criterion for delisting the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander should be climate change, since this is the number one threat to the
species.
Response: In the listing rule for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger
salamander (USFWS 2000a, b), the five year review (USFWS 2009), and this recovery
plan, we have identified habitat loss as the primary threat to the species. The precise
effect that climate change will have on California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara
County is unknown.
VI-14
Comment: One commenter stated that the La Purisima metapopulation should be classified as
"recovered" because it meets the recovery criteria with the conservation bank; therefore a
delisting is warranted because USFWS should revise its definition of "sufficient" (i.e., sufficient
number of ponds to meet delisting criteria).
Response: We have added to the recovery plan a discussion of the areas of the Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander's range that have already been put into
conservation in “Part H. Past Conservation Efforts”. These discussions identify areas that
count towards meeting recovery criteria. We presently believe that the recovery criteria
must be met in all six metapopulation areas for delisting to be warranted; further research
and monitoring should clarify the exact number of metapopulations necessary.
Comment: Two commenters questioned average pond size under Criterion 1 and how this was
calculated (arithmetic mean vs. geometric mean).
Response: The footnote for Criterion 1 in the recovery plan states that "the average size
of known breeding ponds in Santa Barbara County is 1.47 acres, so four ponds with this
size are required to preserve a minimum viable population for each metapopulation based
on calculations in Appendix A. In metapopulation areas where ponds are smaller than
1.47 acres, more than 4 ponds may be needed to support the minimum viable population
size since effective population size is related to pond area." For example, the geometric
mean of known breeding ponds in Santa Barbara County is 0.6 acres. Five 0.6 acre ponds
would be required to preserve a minimum viable population for each metapopulation
based on calculations in Appendix A.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we consider using a wider range of depths than 40-80
centimeters in Criterion 1. Many ponds are deeper than 80 centimeters. Ponds need to hold water
for more than consecutive 90 days but also should dry out in most years.
Response: We have revised the Criterion 1 based on this suggestion. Criterion 1
now reads: “At least four functional breeding ponds per metapopulation area are in
fully preserved status and managed for the benefit of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander. The first priority is preservation of existing ponds,
followed by restored or created ponds.” The important aspect to consider is that a
pond hold needs to water for more than 90 days, but that it also dries out most or all
years; rather than include a pond depth range. We revised the Life History and
Ecology section of the recovery plan to read: “…California tiger salamanders require
pools with continuous inundation periods for 70-90 days (Shaffer and Trenham
2004).”
Comment: One commenter stated that if under Criterion 1 you need 4 or more ponds per
metapopulation and you already have 60, it sounds like you have already solved the problem.
Response: Criterion 1 requires at least four functional breeding ponds per
metapopulation area in fully preserved status and managed for the benefit of the Santa
Barbara County California tiger salamander. Fully preserved status is either: (1) owned in
fee title by an agency or conservation organization; or, (2) privately-owned lands
protected in perpetuity with conservation easements. These lands must have funding
secured for long-term management and monitoring. This criterion has not yet been
achieved.
VI-15
Comment: One commenter stated that under Criterion 2, the amount of 623 acres of functional
upland habitat around each preserve pond being in fully preserved status should be changed to
include preservation of all habitat within 896 meters of the breeding pond because placement of
the pond in the protected area will affect how many of the California tiger salamanders are
protected. This 896 meters equates to 623 acres, but includes an area equidistant from the pond
in all directions. Alternatively, you could state that the pond would need to be 417 meters away
from the edge of the parcel. This would encompass 95 percent of the metamorphs. This is
equivalent to having a setback around the pond and would ensure that metamorphs could find an
upland retreat.
Response: We have added this suggestion to footnote 6. This addition to the footnote
reads: “Ideally, the 623 acres would include all habitat within 896 meters of the breeding
pond because placement of the pond in the protected area will affect how many of the
salamanders are protected.” Given the level of fragmentation in this landscape, the
commenter’s suggestion would not be possible in some metapopulations.
Comment: One commenter stated that under Criterion 3, "partially preserved habitat" would be
difficult to manage accurately and count toward delisting of the species. Even if land use is
compatible at the time, there is no guarantee that incompatible land uses will not enter the area
once the California tiger salamander is delisted and USFWS has no jurisdiction.
Response: Partially preserved habitat was included in an effort to make Criterion 3
attainable while being biologically appropriate. Partially preserved lands refer to areas
with land uses that are compatible with successful growth and survival of juvenile and
adult California tiger salamanders, but may not necessarily be fully preserved.
Comment: One commenter suggested, in regards to Criterion 3, that future ecological research
should focus on compatible versus incompatible land uses for the California tiger salamander
and added explicitly to recovery planning.
Response: Under the recovery actions related to conducting research on threats to the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, we have added a new action (Action
5.3) to explicitly evaluate how California tiger salamanders use and respond to
compatible versus incompatible land uses.
Comment: In regards to Criterion 4, one commenter questioned how can we determine recovery
if we don't know the population count for the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Response: As stated in Appendix B of the recovery plan, for any pond-breeding
amphibian, there are at least three ways to estimate population size and trend over time.
One is to use drift fences to estimate the number of adults or metamorphs at a site. A
second is to count the number of larvae in a breeding site at some time in the larval
period. The third is to use molecular genetic techniques to estimate the size of the
population. The first two approaches return point samples of the census population size,
which is difficult to interpret toward a population trend, given that only some individuals
in the population breed in any year. In particular for California tiger salamanders, there is
strong evidence that in low rain years, most individuals do not breed; whereas, in high
rain years, more individuals come out to breed and are likely to be counted. This makes
the interpretation of counts within and across years difficult, because the count reflects
the rain year, the time of year when the count is done relative to breeding and
VI-16
metamorphosis, and the actual census size of the true population. Using genetic
approaches to estimate the effective population size (N
e
) is a more accurate indication of
the total population size, rather than just the number of individuals that happened to breed
in a particular year. In that sense, changes in N
e
are a more accurate representation of
population trends than any given estimate of the census size for a given year.
Comment: In regards to Criterion 4, one commenter asked if there is a stable/diverse gene pool
to promote recovery of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Response: Although published data indicate reduced mitochondrial variation in
California tiger salamanders across Santa Barbara County, unpublished data indicate that
there is a high level of variation within and between ponds in microsatellite markers
within the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander (Shaffer, pers. comm.
2015). When combined with the continued persistence and successful breeding of many
California tiger salamander populations within Santa Barbara County, there is every
indication that there is sufficient genetic variation to support recovery of this DPS.
Comment: In regards to Criterion 4, one commenter stated that 10 years does not seem like a
sufficient amount of time to determine if a population is stable. Because the oldest age recorded
of a wild caught California tiger salamander is 13 years, two turnovers would be 26 years. It is a
long time, but it takes a long time to accurately estimate population trends. If genetic samples
were collected every 5 years over 26 years, this would be a much more robust estimate of the
population than estimating every 3 years as is currently in the draft recovery plan.
Response: We have revised the monitoring recommendation to be once per year for 10
consecutive years, aiming for one full generational turnover. Sampling would include
three to five ponds per metapopulation, and doing so each year for 10 consecutive years.
This will greatly reduce the effects of variability in climate and rainfall, allowing one to
account for that variation when estimating population trends.
______________________________________________________________________________
Conservation Easements / Conservation Banks
Comment: Three commenters stated that we underestimated costs for conservations easements,
and one commenter stated we miscalculated.
Response: The $5,000 per acre easement cost is based on an estimate of approximate
easement value for a 1,000 acre parcel with development rights removed by the
easement. If the 1,000 acre parcel were grazing land only (no development rights), the
easement value would be closer to $2,000 per acre. Easement values in California tiger
salamander habitats in Santa Barbara County are highly variable and depend upon
individual property characteristics. Price per acre values range broadly depending on
development potential and extent of grazing-only lands, from $2,500 per acre to $20,000
per acre (Hammock, pers. comm. 2014). Estimates are for easement costs only;
acquisition costs would be much higher. We have revised the text to reflect the accurate
cost estimate.
Comment: One commenter stated that we should review the conservation bank permitting
process to see if it could be made easier, as they theorized more landowners would participate.
VI-17
Response: The USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
conservation banking programs are constantly being improved. Please see the following
conservation banking websites for the latest:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowners/conservation-banking.html;
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Banking
Comment: One commenter stated that startup costs for conservation easements and conservation
banks are very expensive.
Response: Conservation banking is an investment just like any other, with requisite
startup costs. Different easements may not require large startup costs, depending on how
they are funded.
Comment: One commenter stated that USFWS should offer landowners compensation for
development rights and pay for conservation easement costs and endowment costs.
Response: Recovery plans do not come with associated funding; however, they can help
conservation partners leverage funds for recovery efforts from various sources. Funding
for implementation could come from non-profit organizations, academia, and/or
discretionary funds of Federal and state resource agencies and local municipalities
working to help recover endangered species.
Comment: One commenter stated the draft recovery plan does not mention conservation
easements that are already in place, and another stated that lands already conserved should count
towards recovery.
Response: We agree with the commenters and have added to the recovery plan a
discussion of the areas of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander's range
that have already been put into conservation in “Part H. Past Conservation Efforts”. This
discussion identifies areas that count towards meeting recovery criteria.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that land will be involuntarily taken if landowners do
not volunteer to participate in conservation easements or sell their land into easements.
Response: The recovery plan lays out a strategy to recover the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander by recommending actions to alleviate the primary threats
impacting the species including habitat loss and fragmentation. One action in the
recovery plan is to protect habitat for California tiger salamanders through acquisition of
conservation easements. The actions outlined in the recovery plan are voluntary and not
regulatory in nature.
Comment: One commenter suggested that to reduce costs, we should implement predator control
to increase populations rather than purchasing expensive easements.
Response: Habitat loss is the primary threat to the California tiger salamander. Without
habitat conservation, the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander cannot
recover.
______________________________________________________________________________
VI-18
Hybridization / Non-native Species
Comment: One commenter stated that hybrid control should be included in every upland drift
fence and aquatic California tiger salamander survey that the USFWS approves and that ponds
near the La Purisima Golf Course and Lompoc Federal Penitentiary should be accessed and
prioritized.
Response: The USFWS and CDFW have funded a $130,000 study to develop and begin
implementing a plan to survey for and control non-native and hybrid salamanders around
the La Purisima Golf Course area. This project could incorporate data taken during pre-
project surveys.
Comment: One commenter stated that drying up ponds to control non-native species could harm
other native species.
Response: Native species are adapted to vernal (seasonal) ponds that dry up for part of
the year. Ponds that are dried out to remove invasive species (i.e., fish and bullfrogs) are
dried out in the summer or early fall when native species would not be using the ponds.
Comment: One commenter asked what the actual impact of hybrids is. Another commenter
stated that the USFWS has not proven that hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders is
harmful to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Response: Non-native tiger salamanders breed with native tiger salamanders to create
hybrids. Non-native and hybrid tiger salamanders outcompete native California tiger
salamanders because they are more voracious predators and can reach a larger size while
still in the aquatic phase (Ryan et al. 2009). Thus, non-native and hybrid tiger
salamanders can contribute to the extirpation of native California tiger salamanders
because they have a selective advantage and can harm natural ecosystem processes by
altering natural food weds (Searcy et al. 2016).
Comment: One commenter stated that hybrid tiger salamanders should be addressed before
money is spent on implementation of the recovery plan. If they are out of control, then nothing
can be done.
Response: Addressing hybrids is part of the recovery plan.
______________________________________________________________________________
Education and Outreach
Comment: Two commenters stated that there should be more open forum to discuss
collaboration and cooperation and the public should be given knowledge of how agencies will
interact to implement the recovery plan.
Response: We have changed Action 7 to read: "Foster collaboration and cooperation
through education, outreach, and regular meetings." Action 7.1 was revised to become:
“Organize and implement a 'Santa Barbara CTS Recovery Collaborative' including
agencies and stakeholders to foster collaboration and cooperation in recovery
implementation. (Priority 1)”
Comment: One commenter stated that developing outreach and communicating with the public
is important to undertake, as is developing a website to educate the public about the Santa
VI-19
Barbara County California tiger salamander. They added, local landowners lack information
about California tiger salamander occurrence on private lands and its implications.
Response: We agree.
Comment: One commenter suggested an advertising campaign for public outreach to foster
collaboration.
Response: We have revised Action 7.3 (formerly Action 7.4, the previous action 7.3 has
been deleted) to read: “Conduct public outreach to foster collaboration, including public
awareness about the biology and threats to the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Economic Impacts / Costs
Comment: One commenter wondered how many jobs will be lost and how the local economy
will be impacted. They stated that the economic impacts of implementing recovery actions
should be addressed in the plan. They also stated that taxpayer money will fund the plan and it
will be wasted if the USFWS or CDFW backs out before they are finished implementing the
recovery plan. Additionally, they stated that cost cannot be accurately estimated because 20
percent of recovery actions in the implementation table are "TBD."
Response: Estimating the cost of many of the recovery actions is difficult. The USFWS
currently estimates the total cost of this recovery plan at $181,340,000 over the next 30
years. Most of these funds would be invested in the local community where California
tiger salamanders occur, because the associated costs are, among other things, for
identification and protection of occurrences through fee-title acquisition or conservation
easement from willing sellers, wetlands restoration, habitat management, and research
necessary to guide the recovery of the species. Recovery plans do not come with
associated funding; however, they can help conservation partners leverage funds for
recovery efforts from various sources. Funding for implementation could come from non-
profit organizations, academia, and/or discretionary funds of Federal and state resource
agencies and local municipalities working to help recover endangered species. The
USFWS is obligated under the Endangered Species Act to recover listed species.
Comment: One commenter stated that we should ensure adequate set-asides for recovery, but
avoid excessive set-asides that would impact the local economy.
Response: The recovery plan lays out a strategy to recover the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander by recommending actions to alleviate the primary threats
impacting the species including habitat loss and fragmentation. One action in the
recovery plan is to protect habitat for California tiger salamanders through acquisition of
conservation easements. The actions outlined in the recovery plan are voluntary and not
regulatory in nature; we will not create “set-asides” on these lands. Willing landowners
would be compensated for creating conservation easements on their lands.
Comment: One commenter was concerned with economic impacts and wondered what would be
the estimated economic loss resulting from the conversion of currently productive agricultural
land by reaching recovery criteria.
VI-20
Response: A recovery plan is advisory in nature and does not mandate agreement to or
implementation of any of the recovery actions proposed. A recovery plan is a reference
document that identifies actions that, if implemented, are expected to recover a species.
Economic effects of implementing recovery actions will depend on particular local
circumstances; specific proposals to implement actions may be evaluated through
processes such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some agricultural practices, such as cattle grazing,
represent compatible land uses in California tiger salamander habitat and can continue
while reaching recovery criteria.
Comment: Four commenters were concerned about the estimated costs of recovery.
Response: The USFWS currently estimates the total cost of implementing this recovery
plan at $181,374,000 over the next 30 years. Most of these funds would be invested in the
local community in Santa Barbara County where California tiger salamanders occur
because the associated costs are, among other things, for identification and protection of
occurrences through fee-title acquisition or conservation easement from willing sellers,
wetlands restoration, habitat management, and research necessary to guide the recovery
of the species. Recovery plans do not come with associated funding; however, they can
help conservation partners leverage funds for recovery efforts from various sources.
Funding for implementation could come from non-profit organizations, academia, and/or
discretionary funds of Federal and state resource agencies and local municipalities
working to help recover endangered species.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the cost of the recovery plan is a lot, considering
salamanders are of benefit to no one and there is no need to save the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander.
Response: Depending on life stage, California tiger salamanders eat aquatic insects,
earthworms, small crustaceans, and insect larvae, or secondary consumers like small
frogs and toads. Because they feed on a wide range of species, California tiger
salamanders prevent insect and amphibian overpopulation. Because of their thin
permeable skin, California tiger salamanders can also act as an indicator species,
detecting if a habitat's pollution levels are too high. The California tiger salamander is
also a food source for many other species, including herons, egrets, fish, bullfrogs, terns,
raccoons, skunks, and snakes. Congress answered why we should save endangered
species in the preamble to the Endangered Species Act, recognizing that endangered and
threatened species of wildlife and plants “are of esthetic, ecological, educational,
historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.” In this
statement, Congress summarized convincing arguments made by scientists,
conservationists, and others who were concerned by the disappearance of unique
creatures. Congress further stated its intent that the Act should conserve the ecosystems
upon which endangered and threatened species depend.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the USFWS needs to identify its funding sources for
implementing the recovery plan.
Response: Recovery plans do not come with associated funding; however, they can help
conservation partners leverage funds for recovery efforts from various sources. Funding
VI-21
for implementation could come from non-profit organizations, academia, and/or
discretionary funds of Federal and state resource agencies and local municipalities
working to help recover endangered species.
______________________________________________________________________________
Population Status and Monitoring
Comment: Two commenters questioned monitoring methods in Appendix B regarding genetic
approaches to estimate N
e
. They questioned whether monitoring under this approach was really a
better way to estimate population trends. They stated that too few ponds would be surveyed for
basing decisions and added that some ponds may be used by more California tiger salamanders
than others. They also stated that sampling should be done yearly to get the most accurate data.
Response: We have revised the monitoring recommendation to be once per year for 10
consecutive years, aiming for one full generational turnover. Sampling would include
three to five ponds per metapopulation, and doing so each year for 10 consecutive years.
This will greatly reduce the effects of variability in climate and rainfall, allowing one to
account for that variation when estimating population trends.
Comment: One commenter asked is there some other way to assess California tiger salamander
populations without taking tail clips? They thought it would harm California tiger salamander
populations.
Response: Tail clipping does not affect survival of California tiger salamanders (Polich
et al. 2013).
Comment: One commenter asked: (1) how will the USFWS determine that N
e
is increasing over
a 10-year period, and (2) is there a baseline established? Additionally, they wondered if the
California tiger salamander population is high but not increasing, would the USFWS consider it
recovered.
Response: In Appendix B, Dr. Brad Shaffer (UCLA) recommends that for each
metapopulation of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, molecular
estimates of N
e
from three to five ponds per metapopulation each year for 10 consecutive
years be collected. The trend in N
e
will then be evaluated statistically over this timeframe
starting with the first year that samples are taken as a baseline. Sample sizes of 30 to 50
larval tail tips for each pond will provide adequate information on N
e
, and ideally those
samples should be collected during the late-larval period, probably in April in most years.
Tissue samples should be sufficiently large to ensure that there is plenty of tissue for
multiple DNA extractions and sequencing experiments, since the technology will almost
certainly evolve and change every few years. If population estimates indicate that a
minimum viable population is conserved and not declining, then the USFWS could
determine that the intent of the recovery criteria would have been met and that the
population is recovered.
Comment: Four commenters stated that because we do not currently have population
information for the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, we could not determine its
population status after the monitoring in the recovery plan is initiated; first we need to determine
the baseline population.
VI-22
Response: The goal of the recovery plan is to conserve a minimum viable population
size such that the population trend of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander is stable or positive and the likelihood of extinction due to increasing threats
is removed. A baseline is not required for this recovery plan and its implementation. It
requires that monitoring begins as soon as possible.
Comment: One commenter stated that the more land that is conserved for the Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander, the more difficult it will be for the USFWS to get an
accurate count.
Response: We believe this is untrue. Land that is conserved for the Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander is one of the easiest places to sample the population
and get an accurate population estimate.
Comment: One commenter stated that monitoring of N
e
should be done prior to implementing
other recovery actions.
Response: Implementation of recovery actions is a concurrent process. Monitoring of N
e
should be started immediately so that we can evaluate success, but we also need to begin
implementation of other recovery actions so that recovery can be achieved within the
given timeframe.
______________________________________________________________________________
Specific Actions
Comment: One commenter stated that Action 1.8 (now Action 1.6) is a good win-win action for
the California tiger salamander and grazing land that the USFWS should focus on because it can
be easily achieved.
Response: Thank you for your supportive comment.
Comment: We received two comments on Action 2.3.2. One commenter stated there should be a
monitoring study to assess effectiveness at each undercrossing installed because it is important to
know the degree to which California tiger salamanders will use an undercrossing. They
suggested that this information will aid in improving the design of future undercrossings. The
other commenter stated that our cost estimate is high for this action.
Response: We have added “monitor effectiveness” to this action. If California tiger
salamander-specific undercrossings are installed, we expect that California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans) or another entity will conduct monitoring. We have revised
this estimate to $50,000 per crossing as per the commenter’s suggestion (Potter in litt.
2015).
Comment: One commenter suggested that we modify Action 3.2.1 in the draft Recovery Plan to
indicate that it has been accomplished, or remove it.
Response: For the final Recovery Plan, we have deleted what was Action 3.2.1 from the
recovery plan because it has been completed. We have also deleted what was Action
3.2.2 from the recovery plan, which was related to Action 3.2.1, because it is no longer
relevant.
VI-23
Comment: One commenter stated that Action 5.2, using environmental DNA for detecting
California tiger salamanders, would be a very valuable assessment for surveys, because the
current drift fence survey protocol is costly and time consuming, and can produce negative
findings.
Response: We agree. If this technology is found successful for detecting California tiger
salamander in ponds, it could have great implications for the species’ management.
Comment: Regarding Action 5.4 (now Action 5.6), one commenter asked what the long-term
effects of using bacterium (Bacillus) to kill mosquito larvae are and questioned the effects to
other native species? The commenter expressed concern that this could increase West Nile Virus
in humans in the area.
Response: The recovery plan indicates that the bacterium, Bacillus, should be studied to
better understand what the potential impacts could be from its use to control mosquitos.
Currently, the answers to these questions are unknown.
Comment: One commenter stated recovery should be aggressively implemented; especially
Action 1.3 and (what was) Action 1.4.
Response: We agree that implementation of Action 1.3 is a priority. We deleted what
was Action 1.4 from the recovery plan because we received substantial feedback that this
action was of a regulatory nature.
______________________________________________________________________________
Figures / Maps
Comment: We received two comments regarding Figure 1 in the draft recovery plan. The
commenters stated that this map is confusing and inaccurate and that the difference between
potential distribution and metapopulation areas is unclear. They stated that this map differs from
a Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander distribution map from 2004. Additionally,
they suggested that a potential distribution line should be removed so landowners that clearly do
not have California tiger salamander on their lands would know.
Response: We have attempted to clarify the difference between potential distribution and
metapopulation areas in the recovery plan. Potential distribution includes the general area
of potentially suitable habitat within the range of the species that is currently occupied or
has the potential to become occupied by the salamanders. This includes low-elevation
vernal pools and seasonal ponds, and associated grassland, oak savannah, and coastal
scrub plant communities of the Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita Valleys in
northwestern Santa Barbara County (generally under 1,500 feet (475 meters)) (Shaffer et
al. 1993, Sweet 1993). Metapopulation areas signify areas where the California tiger
salamanders and their associated habitat are known to exist, thus outlining general areas
where conservation efforts may be the most effective to help recover the species. The
map in Figure 1 reflects our current understanding of the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander’s distribution and areas of potential occupancy based upon
the best available science.
Comment: One commenter stated in regards to Figure 2 in the draft recovery plan that the five
ponds at the Casmalia Hazardous Waste Management Facility should not be included as
potential California tiger salamander breeding ponds because this is a superfund site.
VI-24
Response: This may be a superfund site, but it is a known California tiger salamander
locality. Hunt (in litt. 2006) observed California tiger salamanders during upland surveys
at the Casmalia Hazardous Waste Management Facility in the winter of 2004 – 2005. The
ponds at the Casmalia Hazardous Waste Management Facility are the only known aquatic
habitats where California tiger salamanders can breed within dispersal distance of these
upland observations.
Comment: One commenter stated in regards to Figure 4 in the draft recovery plan that the
northern boundary of the West Los Alamos/Careaga Metapopulation Area should be moved
south. The Orcutt urban area has already had California tiger salamander surveys and they are
not there.
Response: The USFWS has no record of protocol-level surveys that have determined
absence from within a pre-defined boundary in Orcutt.
Comment: One commenter stated in regards to Figure 5 in the draft recovery plan that this map
includes rugged terrain south of Los Alamos and there is no reason to map it as California tiger
salamander habitat.
Response: This area is within dispersal distance from the known California tiger
salamander breeding ponds to the north.
______________________________________________________________________________
General Comments
Comment: Another attempt should be made at developing a regional Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) because it would guide recovery implementation, make clear what mitigation
requirements are, and provide assurances to landowners.
Response: The USFWS agrees that the development of a regional HCP is a good idea.
Comment: The USFWS should more clearly define what agricultural activities could be
conducted without harm to California tiger salamanders, and what is meant by "conversion", etc.
to make it more clear to landowners what is allowed or not.
Response: Please see Ford et al. 2013, as cited in the recovery plan, for the details of
managing rangelands to benefit the California tiger salamander. In addition, under the
recovery actions related to conducting research on threats to the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander, we have added a new action (Action 5.3) to explicitly
evaluate how California tiger salamanders use and respond to compatible versus
incompatible land uses.
Comment: One commenter stated that tail clipping for genetic testing is proof that California
tiger salamanders are resilient enough to withstand tilling from agriculture.
Response: Tail clipping does not affect survival of California tiger salamanders (Polich
et al. 2013); however, ground disturbing activities such as deep-ripping or discing can kill
California tiger salamanders and substantially alter their habitat.
Comment: One commenter stated there is already significant regulation imposed on agriculture
and duplicative regulatory recovery actions should be removed.
VI-25
Response: Collaboration with other regulatory agencies is essential for the recovery of
the Santa Barbara California tiger salamander. Additionally, recovery actions are not
regulatory in nature. To be consistent with this, we deleted what was Action 1.4 from the
recovery plan because we received substantial feedback that this action was of a
regulatory nature.
Comment: One commenter stated that ground squirrels should be introduced around ponds
because Trenham (no year or citation provided) says that travel distance is a function of fewer
ground squirrels around the ponds.
Response: Although small mammal burrows provide important habitat for California
tiger salamanders during the terrestrial part of their life cycle, Searcy et al. (2013) found
that density of adult California tiger salamanders is independent of burrow density.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the buffer areas in Appendix A of the draft recovery
plan are based on two adjacent breeding ponds in Solano County with different climate than
Santa Barbara County and that we should not use information for California tiger salamanders in
Solano County.
Response: The Act requires the USFWS to develop recovery plans on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial information available. We do not have data on migration
distances for salamanders in Santa Barbara County, nor do we have information to make
this inference based on climatic data alone.
Comment: One commenter asked why the 4(d) rule is not in effect to exempt routine ranching
operations from take of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Response: The 4(d) rule only applies to species that are listed as threatened. Because the
Santa Barbara DPS is listed as endangered under the Act, the 4(d) rule does not apply.
One advantage to meeting the criteria for downlisting would be that the 4(d) rule could
take effect for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander.
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS does not recognize California tiger
salamanders occurring in areas under cultivation.
Response: Many types of cultivation are not consistent with California tiger salamander
persistence and recovery. California tiger salamanders are able to continue to breed in
ponds that remain intact near cultivated uplands, if they are able to migrate to and from
uplands that are not cultivated. Most cultivation destroys small mammal burrows, which
California tiger salamanders depend on for 95 percent of their life. In addition, we have
added Action 5.3 under “Conduct research on threats to the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander” to explicitly evaluate compatible versus incompatible land
uses for the California tiger salamander.
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS does not recognize salamanders that occur on
the Los Padres National Forest lands and at the Lompoc Federal Penitentiary.
Response: We are unaware of any California tiger salamanders that occur on Los Padres
National Forest lands, which is outside of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander's potential distribution (see Figure 1). The Ambystoma salamanders that
occur at the Lompoc Federal Penitentiary are all non-native, introduced tiger salamanders
from the central United States, as confirmed by genetic testing.
VI-26
Comment: One commenter stated that the tiger salamanders in other portions of the U.S. could
be relocated to Santa Barbara County to achieve recovery.
Response: The recovery plan is specific to the native, listed entity, which has been
shown to be genetically distinct from other tiger salamanders. Non-native tiger
salamanders and hybridization with them are threats to the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander, and therefore would not contribute to recovery.
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS proposes to ask the County of Santa Barbara
to revise its grading ordinance; therefore, the USFWS's real goal is to remove land from
development.
Response: Because recovery plans are guidance rather than regulatory documents, we
have removed what was Action 1.4, which recommended that the County of Santa
Barbara revise its grading ordinance.
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS knows that critical habitat designations do
not apply to projects sans a Federal nexus and that they have no mechanism available to them
except a CEQA determination from the County of Santa Barbara that would only be possible via
a revision to the grading ordinance.
Response: The USFWS disagrees. While it is true that critical habitat only applies when
there is a Federal nexus, the Endangered Species Act protects listed species
independently of and whether or not critical habitat for that species is designated.
Designated critical habitat for a species and its status as threatened or endangered each
provide protections under the Act independently of one another. Listed species are
afforded protections under the Act regardless of whether or not a Federal nexus exists for
a project.
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS should ascertain whether land is able to be
converted to crops (e.g., whether there is enough water to irrigate them).
Response: Land conversion for intensive agriculture or urbanization will still make an
area unsuitable for California tiger salamanders. Under the recovery actions related to
conducting research on threats to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander,
we have added a new action (Action 5.3) to explicitly evaluate how California tiger
salamanders use and respond to compatible versus incompatible land uses.
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS created the recovery plan to justify keeping
the species on the endangered species list.
Response: We disagree. The ultimate goal of the recovery plan is to identify ways to
reduce the threats to the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander to ensure its
long-term viability in the wild, promoting its recovery, and allowing for its removal from
the list of threatened and endangered species. The interim goal is to recover the
population to the point that it can be downlisted from endangered to threatened status.
Comment: One commenter stated that it is important to protect wildlife corridors and the food
chain balance to promote delisting of the Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander.
Response: The USFWS agrees.
VI-27
Comment: One commenter stated that the recovery plan is thoroughly researched and seems to
thoroughly address obstacles to the recovery of the Santa Barbara County California tiger
salamander.
Response: Thank you.
Comment: One commenter stated that some components of the recovery plan would be
beneficial to grazing landowners by providing monetary incentives to protect and create new
habitat.
Response: The USFWS agrees.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the best way to accomplish recovery objectives is to
enhance incentives and encourage cooperation with private landowners and that there should be
monetary incentives to encourage ranchers to maintain breeding ponds, use non-chemical rodent
control measures, and work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to restore
degraded grazing areas.
Response: The USFWS agrees. Recovery plans do not come with associated funding;
however, they can help conservation partners leverage funds for recovery efforts from
various sources. Funding for implementation could come from non-profit organizations,
academia, and/or discretionary funds of Federal and state resource agencies and local
municipalities working to help recover endangered species.
Comment: One commenter stated that they were concerned with lack of public participation in
development of the recovery plan.
Response: In December 2012, the USFWS settled a lawsuit with the Center for
Biological Diversity that prescribed a timeline for the completion of the recovery plan for
the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander. The tight timeline for
completion of the recovery plan under the settlement did not allow time for the public
involvement that is typical of the recovery planning process. We held a public workshop
Friday, May 22, 2015, from 10:30 AM to 12:00 PM in Santa Maria, CA, after the
publication of the draft recovery plan and solicited input from the public. The 60-day
public comment period on the draft recovery plan closed on June 23, 2015. Based on
input we received during the public comment period, we have revised the draft recovery
plan to develop the final recovery plan.
Comment: One commenter stated that the recovery plan does not offer monetary incentives to
landowners who offer to conserve their land.
Response: Recovery plans do not come with associated funding; however, they can help
conservation partners leverage funds for recovery efforts from various sources. Funding
for land conservation could come from non-profit organizations, academia, and/or
discretionary funds of Federal and state resource agencies and local municipalities
working to help recover endangered species.
Comment: One commenter stated that the recovery plan should give more detail on how actions
and criteria take drought and climate change into account.
Response: The precise effects that climate change will have on the Santa Barbara County
California tiger salamander are unknown. Drought is a natural part of the climatic
VI-28
variability of the ecoregion; however, drought may be exacerbated by climate change. By
working to reduce all other threats to the species, we anticipate that resiliency of the
population to future effects of climate change and drought will be increased.
Comment: One commenter stated that they support the recovery plan’s focus on habitat and
restoration, and reducing contaminants, pesticides, and rodenticides.
Response: Thank you.
Comment: One commenter stated that habitat conditions are too dry for salamanders in Santa
Barbara County.
Response: The California tiger salamander inhabits low-elevation vernal pools and
seasonal ponds and associated grassland, oak savannah, and coastal scrub plant
communities of the Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita Valleys in northwestern
Santa Barbara County (generally under 1,500 feet (475 meters)) (Shaffer et al. 1993,
Sweet 1993). Although California tiger salamanders are adapted to natural vernal pools
and ponds, they now frequently use manmade or modified ephemeral and permanent
ponds. This represents a shift in habitat during historical time, from vernal pools and sag
ponds generally located on valley floors to livestock ponds in the foothills.
Comment: One commenter stated that the USFWS should notify all landowners before recovery
plan implementation if their land will be affected by those actions.
Response: The actions outlined in the recovery plan are voluntary and not regulatory in
nature. No part of the recovery plan will be implemented without landowner knowledge
or approval because they would be included any efforts on their lands.
Comment: One commenter stated that the discussion of urban sprawl is not accurate;
development is limited to city lines and the language should be revised with updated information
from the cities and county. They stated that urban sprawl is not an issue for the Santa Barbara
County California tiger salamander.
Response: Land outside of the city limits has been and is rezoned to facilitate urban and
residential development including, for example, Betteravia Farms development and
Union Valley Parkway Development. Union Valley Parkway is a clear example of an
intended expansion outside of the city limits.
Comment: Several commenters stated that mineral rights should be considered in land value
estimates associated with actions in the draft recovery plan.
Response: Mineral rights do not have to be acquired to initiate a conservation easement
for the benefit of the California tiger salamander.
Comment: One commenter stated that some components of the draft recovery plan would cause
a net loss of grazing land by imposing regulation on land disturbance, regulating rodent control
and chemicals, deeming what is a poor grazing practice, and forcing landowners to sell or create
conditions that are not conducive to grazing operations.
Response: This recovery plan is not regulatory and will not halt new development or
impose regulations on ground disturbance. While habitat loss in general is a threat to the
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamander, the recovery plan provides a strategy
VI-29
that guides recovery of the species within the context of future development or ground
disturbance.
Literature Cited
Ford, L.D., P.A. Van Hoorn, D.R. Rao, N.J. Scott, P.C. Trenham, and J.W. Bartolome. 2013.
Managing Rangelands to Benefit California Red-legged Frogs and California Tiger
Salamanders. Livermore, California: Alameda County Resource Conservation District.
Jennings, M.R. 2000. California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense. Pages 193-196 In:
P.R. Olofson (editor). Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life Histories
and Environmental Requirements of Key Plants, Fish and Wildlife. San Francisco Bay Area
Wetland Goals Project, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland,
California. xvi+408 p.
Loredo, I. and D. VanVuren. 1996. Reproductive ecology of a population of the California tiger
salamander. Copeia 1996:895-901.
Orloff, S.G. 2011. Movement patterns and migration distances in an upland population of
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Herpetological Conservation and
Biology 6:266-276.
Polich, R.L., C.A. Searcy, and H.B. Shaffer. 2013. Effects of tail-clipping on survivorship and
growth of larval salamanders. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(7):1420-1425.
Ryan, M.E., J.R. Johnson, and B.M. Fitzpatrick. 2009. Invasive hybrid tiger salamander
genotypes impact native amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
106:11166-11171.
Searcy, C.A., E. Gabbai-Saldate, and H.B. Shaffer. 2013. Microhabitat use and migration
distance of an endangered grassland amphibian. Biological Conservation 158:80-87
Searcy, C.A., H.B. Rollins, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. Ecological equivalency as a tool for
endangered species management. Ecological Applications 26(1):94-103.
Shaffer, H.B., R.N. Fisher, and S.E. Stanley. 1993. Status report: the California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense). Final report for the California Department of Fish and Game. 36
pp. plus figures and tables.
Shaffer, H.B., and P.C. Trenham. 2004. Ambystoma californiense. Pages 1093-1102 in M.J.
Lannoo, editor. Status and conservation of U.S. amphibians. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Sweet, S. 1993. Report addressed to Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. University of California,
Santa Barbara, California.
Trenham, P.C., H. B. Shaffer, W.D. Koenig, and M.R. Stromberg. 2000. Life history and
demographic variation in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Copeia
2000:365-377.
VI-30
USFWS. 2000a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Emergency rule to list the Santa
Barbara County distinct population of the California tiger salamander as endangered. Federal
Register 65:3096.
USFWS. 2000b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final rule to list the Santa
Barbara County distinct population of the California tiger salamander as endangered. Federal
Register 65:57242.
USFWS. 2009. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Santa Barbara County
Distinct Population Segment 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. U.S. Department of
Interior, Ventura, California.
In Litteris References
Hunt, Lawrence. 2006. Letter from Lawrence Hunt, Hunt and Associates Biological Consulting
Services, to Katie Drexhage, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Field Office. Dated
January 7, 2006.
Potter, Martin. 2015. Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County
Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, from Martin Potter,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Received via electronic mail to Cat Darst and
Andrea Adams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office on June 11,
2015.
Searcy, Christopher A. and H. Bradley Shaffer. 2015. Comment letter on the Draft Recovery
Plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger
Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish
and Wildlife Office, from Chris Searcy, University of Toronto Mississauga, and Brad Shaffer,
University of California, Los Angeles. Dated June 23, 2015.
Personal Communications Cited
Hammock, Jim. 2014. Hammock, Arnold, Smith, and Company. Personal communication with
Andrea Adams, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura,
California.
Shaffer, Brad. 2015. University of California, Los Angeles. Personal communication with Cat
Darst, Assistant Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.