West Mojave Plan FEIR/S - Desert Managers Group

“authorized, funded or carried out” by the federal government, including those located on publiclands under BLM, National Park Service or Department of Defense jurisdiction. FESA requires thatfederal agencies shall, “in consultation with and with the assistance of [USFWS] insure that any[such] action ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Endangered species orThreatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of suchspecies...” (FESA Section 7(a)(2).) The term “jeopardize” means to “engage in an action that wouldreasonably be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both thesurvival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers ordistribution of that species.” (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 402.02.)Accordingly, a federal lead agency “consults” with the USFWS if it determines that a project“may affect” a threatened or endangered species. Consultation is initiated when the federal leadagency submits a biological assessment or similar document to the USFWS that describes theproject, its anticipated impacts, and proposed mitigation. USFWS evaluates the informationprovided and determines if the effect can be avoided or if the effects are wholly positive. If so, only“informal consultation” will be carried out and the USFWS issues written concurrence that theproject is not likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat. If an adverseeffect cannot be avoided, “formal consultation” is required, and the USFWS issues a biologicalopinion that states whether the proposed project will jeopardize the continued existence of thespecies or will destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If jeopardy is found, USFWS mustsuggest “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that could be implemented to prevent the species’existence from being jeopardized or critical habitat being destroyed. A “no jeopardy” opinion willprovide “reasonable and prudent measures” to ensure that take is minimized. “Terms andconditions” are issued to provide specific guidance for implementing the reasonable and prudentmeasures. Because of this, no terms and conditions can be issued for listed plant species. Only nonbindingconservation recommendations can be issued for plants.If critical habitat is designated after issuance of a no jeopardy opinion, the federal agencyis required to re-initiate consultation to obtain a determination of “no adverse modification” tothe critical habitat. Because of the frequent time lag between species listing and critical habitatdesignation, several projects have been required to re-initiate consultations under Section 7 of theESA.Consultations Conducted Within the Planning Area: A total of 234 biologicalopinions authorizing 263 California and Nevada projects having the potential to affect tortoiseswere issued between 1990 and 1995. Of the 133 biological opinions issued in California, 101 ledto ground disturbance when projects were developed, resulting in the loss of 53 tortoises (LaRueand Dougherty 1998) 2 . For these projects, terms and conditions were implemented that resultedin 919 tortoises being moved from harm’s way at the time of construction (Circle MountainBiological Consultants 1996, LaRue and Dougherty 1998). Because no comprehensive analysishas been completed for federal biological opinions since 1995, the following discussion isrestricted to these 1990 - 1995 projects. Table 3-4 shows the project types, number of tortoises2 During the same time, only four Section 10(a) permits were issued. Nine Section 10(a) permits have beenissued to date for tortoises in California (Bransfield, pers. comm.).Chapter 3 3-34