Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-05205/USCOURTS-caDC-14-05205-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

The attached material is cited in Sierra Club v. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, No. 14-5205, slip op. at 17 (D.C. Cir. 

September 29, 2015); (citing , U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. 

& Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., Endangered Species 

Consultation Handbook (March 1998), available on

2/17/16 at 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/

esa_section7_handbook.pdf.

Archived by the Circuit Library on 2/17/16.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 1 of 316
Endangered Species 

Consultation Handbook 

Procedures for Conducting " " 

Consz~ltation and Conference 

Activities Under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act 

U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

March 1998 

Final 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 2 of 316
FOREWORD

It gives us great pleasure to introduce the final Section 7 Handbook. It is the culmination of much hard

work by dedicated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service employees.

The Handbook provides internal guidance and establishes national policy for conducting consultation

and conferences pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The

purpose of the Handbook is to promote efficiency and nationwide consistency within and between the

Services. The Handbook addresses the major consultation processes, including informal, formal,

emergency, and special consultations, and conferences. 

Through the section 7 consultation program, the Services strive to meet the consultation needs of all

Federal Agencies. The Services work with their Federal partners to emphasize the identification and

informal resolution of potential species conflicts in the early stages of project planning. They also

provide information about listed, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitats to Federal

agencies planning projects, and those applying for Federal permits and licenses. The Services work

with Federal agencies on any action that is federally funded, authorized, or carried out that may affect

a listed species and designated critical habitats. The Services advise the Agencies and applicants on

how to avoid adversely impacting these species and habitats, and, where appropriate, the Services

provide incidental take statements that allow take of threatened or endangered species that is incidental

to an otherwise legal activity. 

The Handbook will ensure consistent implementation of consultation procedures and development of

associated documents by those biologists responsible for carrying out section 7 activities and provide

the Services guidance necessary to assist other Federal agencies in meeting their responsibilities under

section 7 of the Act. Although primarily targeted toward employees of the Services, other groups

participating in the consultation process, including other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal

governments, private individuals, consultants, and industry groups should find the Handbook helpful

in explaining section 7 processes and providing examples of various types of consultations. 

We would like to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt thanks for the hard work and dedication

of all those who have made the development of this Handbook possible. We especially want to thank

those entities that have become conservation partners with our Agencies through this process. This

document will be an important tool in threatened and endangered species conservation for our Nation.

Jamie Rappaport Clark Rolland A. Schmitten

Director Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 3 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION HANDBOOK

PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING

SECTION 7

CONSULTATIONS AND CONFERENCES

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

March 1998

 Final

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 4 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. viii

LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................. ix

Glossary of Terms used in Section 7 Consultation ............................ x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................ xx

CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION ............................... 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO SECTION 7 CONSULTATION .................. 1-1

1.2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES ................................... 1-3

(A) Lead Regions for Consultation ................................. 1-3

(B) Signature Authority ......................................... 1-4

(C) Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation ............................. 1-5

(D) Information Standards and Sources .............................. 1-6

Best available scientific and commercial data ........................ 1-6

Writing and bibliographic style ................................... 1-7

(E) Early Alerts ............................................... 1-9

(F) Release of Draft Documents .................................. 1-12

(G) Maintaining the Administrative Record .......................... 1-12

CHAPTER 2 - COORDINATION ........................................ 2-1

2.1 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FUNCTIONS .................................................. 2-1

(A) Listing ................................................... 2-1

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 5 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii

(B) Recovery Planning and Implementation .......................... 2-1

(C) Section 10 Coordination ...................................... 2-4

Endangered and threatened species permits - section 10(a)(1)(A) ......... 2-4

Habitat conservation planning - section 10(a)(1)(B) ................... 2-4

Experimental populations - section 10(j) ............................ 2-5

2.2 COORDINATION WITH THE ACTION AGENCY AND APPLICANT .... 2-6

(A) Formal Consultations and Conferences ........................... 2-6

(B) Commitment of Resources during Consultation .................... 2-7

(C) Dealing with Nonresponsive Agencies .......................... 2-10

Agencies that refuse to consult or confer .......................... 2-10

Agencies that refuse to reinitiate consultation ....................... 2-10

(D) Compliance with Section 7(a)(2) .............................. 2-11

No jeopardy and/or no adverse modification finding .................. 2-11

Jeopardy/adverse modification finding ............................ 2-11

Incidental take statements ...................................... 2-12

(E) Role of the Permit or License Applicant ......................... 2-12

Identification of an applicant .................................... 2-12

Applicant's role in the consultation process ......................... 2-13

(F) Role of the Non-Federal Representative ......................... 2-13

2.3 COORDINATION BETWEEN FWS AND NMFS ..................... 2-14

2.4 COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES .............. 2-14

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 6 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii

2.5 COORDINATION WITH STATE AGENCIES ....................... 2-16

2.6 COORDINATION WITH TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ................. 2-16

CHAPTER 3 - INFORMAL CONSULTATION ............................. 3-1

3.1 THE INFORMAL CONSULTATION PROCESS ...................... 3-1

3.2 IDENTIFICATION, RESOLUTION, AND CONSERVATION ............ 3-6

3.3 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ...................................... 3-6

3.4 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS .................................. 3-10

3.5 CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE LETTERS .................. 3-12

CHAPTER 4 - FORMAL CONSULTATION ............................... 4-1

4.1 THE FORMAL CONSULTATION PROCESS ........................ 4-1

4.2 INITIATING FORMAL CONSULTATION ........................... 4-4

4.3 EVALUATING INITIATION PACKAGES ........................... 4-4

4.4 FORMAL CONSULTATION PROCEDURES ......................... 4-5

(A) Timeframes for Formal Consultation ............................. 4-5

(B) Coordination with other environmental reviews ................... 4-11

4.5 COMPONENTS OF A FORMAL CONSULTATION .................. 4-11

Introductory Paragraph ....................................... 4-12

Consultation history .......................................... 4-12

(A) Biological opinion ......................................... 4-15

Description of the proposed action ............................... 4-15

Status of the species/critical habitat .............................. 4-19

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 7 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv

Environmental baseline ........................................ 4-22

Effects of the action .......................................... 4-23

Cumulative effects ........................................... 4-30

Conclusion ................................................. 4-31

Analyses for jeopardy and adverse modification ................... 4-33

Reasonable and prudent alternatives .............................. 4-41

(B) Incidental Take Statement ................................... 4-43

What is incidental take? ....................................... 4-43

Amount or extent of take anticipated ............................. 4-47

Effect of the take ............................................ 4-49

Reasonable and prudent measures ................................ 4-50

Terms and conditions ......................................... 4-51

Coordination of incidental take statements with other laws, regulations, and

policies .................................................. 4-53

Section 10 permits ......................................... 4-53

Safe Harbor Agreements ..................................... 4-54

Migratory birds including bald eagles ........................... 4-56

Marine mammals .......................................... 4-57

(C) Conference Report/Conference Notice .......................... 4-58

(D) Conservation Recommendations ............................... 4-59

(E) Reinitiation Notice ......................................... 4-60

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 8 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v

(F) Literature Cited ........................................... 4-60

4.6 PROCEDURES FOR MODIFYING BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS AND

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENTS ............................. 4-61

4.7 HANDLING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS .......................... 4-64

4.8 PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION ....... 4-64

4.9 DISTRIBUTION OF FINAL FORMAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS . 4-65

CHAPTER 5 - SPECIAL CONSULTATIONS AND REVIEWS ................ 5-1

5.1 PROACTIVE CONSERVATION REVIEWS - Section 7(a)(1) ........... 5-1

5.2 NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS - Section 7(a)(2) ..................... 5-2

(A) Pesticide consultations ....................................... 5-2

(B) Other national consultations ................................... 5-4

5.3 REGIONAL OR ECOSYSTEM CONSULTATIONS ................... 5-4

5.4 STREAMLINED CONSULTATIONS ............................... 5-6

(A) Activities in the Pacific Northwest .............................. 5-6

(B) Interagency Streamlined Consultation MOA ....................... 5-6

5.5 INCREMENTAL STEP CONSULTATIONS .......................... 5-7

CHAPTER 6 - CONFERENCE .......................................... 6-1

6.1 THE NEED FOR CONFERENCE .................................. 6-1

6.2 INFORMAL CONFERENCE ...................................... 6-1

(A) Conference Report .......................................... 6-1

(B) Conference Notice .......................................... 6-2

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 9 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi

6.3 FORMAL CONFERENCE ........................................ 6-4

(A) Timeframes of Formal Conferences .............................. 6-4

(B) Format of Conference Opinion ................................. 6-4

Stand-alone conference ........................................ 6-4

Conference included in a formal consultation ........................ 6-5

(C) Confirmation of Conference Opinion as a Formal Consultation ......... 6-6

CHAPTER 7 - EARLY CONSULTATION ................................. 7-1

7.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR EARLY CONSULTATION ....................... 7-1

7.2 PROCEDURES ................................................ 7-3

7.3 CONFIRMATION AS A FINAL BIOLOGICAL OPINION ............... 7-3

CHAPTER 8 - EMERGENCY CONSULTATION ........................... 8-1

8.1 THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY CONSULTATION ................... 8-1

8.2 PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING EMERGENCY CONSULTATIONS ..... 8-1

(A) Initial Contact by the Action Agency ............................ 8-1

(B) Initiating Formal Consultation ................................. 8-4

(C) Emergency Biological Opinion .................................. 8-4

(D) Incidental Take Statement .................................... 8-5

(E) Conservation Recommendations ................................ 8-5

CHAPTER 9 - MONITORING AND REPORTING .......................... 9-1

9.1 MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION/EFFECTS OF REASONABLE AND

PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES AND MEASURES ..................... 9-1

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 10 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii

9.2 TRACKING COLLECTIVE EFFECTS ON SPECIES AND

THEIR HABITATS .................................................... 9-2

(A) FWS ..................................................... 9-2

(B) NMFS ................................................... 9-6

SUGGESTED READING ................................................ 9-7

APPENDICES

(A) REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO CONSULTATION *

(B) FORMATS FOR CONSULTATION

(C) EXAMPLES OF CONSULTATION *

(D) FWS SOLICITOR OPINIONS *

(E) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE INTRA-SERVICE CONSULTATION

HANDBOOK

(F) FWS/NMFS OFFICES HANDLING SECTION 7

(G) EXEMPTION PROCESS

(H) INTERAGENCY MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON STREAMLINED

CONSULTATIONS *

 These Appendicies are not available in electronic format *

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 11 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 2-1 Application of section 7(d): 2-9

irreversible or irretrievable

commitment of resources

Figure 3-1 Informal consultation process 3-3

Figure 4-1 Formal consultation process 4-3

Figure 4-2 Outline of a formal consultation 4-13

package

Figure 4-3 Example of an action area within 4-16

the species’ range

Figure 4-4 Example of an action area that 4-16 

encompasses the species' range

Figure 4-5 Example of an action area involving 4-17

an effect not at the project site

Figure 4-6 Determining the action area 4-18

Figure 4-7 Effects of disturbance 4-24

Figure 4-8 Example of "recovery units" 4-38

Figure 6-1 Conference processes 6-3

Figure 6-2 Comparison of the conference 6-8

and consultation provisions of

the Endangered Species Act

Figure 7-1 Early consultation process 7-2

Figure 8-1 Emergency consultation process 8-3

Figure E-1 Intra-Service consultation or conference process E-18

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 12 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ix

LIST OF EXHIBITS

PAGE

Exhibit 1-1 Format for early alert 1-10 

Exhibit 2-1 Example of discussion of species' 2-3

tolerance to disturbance

Exhibit 3-1 Example of a species list 3-4

Exhibit 3-2 Example of a need for survey 3-8

Exhibit 3-3 Example of a no effect response 3-14

Exhibit 3-4 Example of a concurrence letter 3-15

Exhibit 3-5 Example of a concurrence letter on a 3-17

beneficial effect

Exhibit 3-6 Example of a nonconcurrence letter 3-18

Exhibit 4-1 Example of a letter sent to inform 4-8

action agencies that the Service

has received a complete

initiation package

Exhibit 4-2 Example of a letter sent when a 4-9

complete formal consultation request

has not been received

Exhibit 4-3 Example of a request for extension 4-10

of time

Exhibit 4-4 Example of modification of an 4-62

incidental take statement

Exhibit 7-1 Sample letter to prospective applicants 7-5

about early consultation rights 

Exhibit 8-1 Emergency consultation notification 8-6

memorandum

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 13 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

x

Glossary of Terms used in Section 7 Consultations

Act - the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Action - all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or

in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. Examples include, but

are not limited to: (a) actions intended to conserve listed species or their habitat; (b) the

promulgation of regulations;(c) the granting of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rightsof-way, permits, or grants-in-aid; or (d) actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to

the land, water, or air. [50 CFR §402.02]

Action area - all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not

merely the immediate area involved in the action. [50 CFR §402.02]

Affect/effect - to affect (a verb) is to bring about a change ("The proposed action is likely to

adversely affect piping plovers nesting on the shoreline"). The effect (usually a noun) is the

result ("The proposed highway is likely to have the following effects on the Florida scrub

jay"). "Affect" appears throughout section 7 regulations and documents in the phrases "may

affect" and "likely to adversely affect." "Effect" appears throughout section 7 regulations

and documents in the phrases "adverse effects," "beneficial effects," "effects of the action,"

and "no effect." [Proper grammatical usage]

Anticipated/allowable/authorized - in incidental take statements, the Services determine the

amount or extent of incidental take "anticipated" (expected) due to the proposed action or an

action modified by reasonable and prudent alternatives. When writing incidental take

statements, use only the phrase "anticipated" rather than "allowable" or "authorized," as the

Services do not allow or authorize (formally permit) incidental take under section 7.

[Clarification of usage]

Applicant - any person (an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any

other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the

Federal Government, of any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any

foreign government; any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State; or any other

entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) [ESA §3(12)] who requires formal

approval or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting the action. 

[50 CFR §402.02]

Appreciably diminish the value - to considerably reduce the capability of designated or

proposed critical habitat to satisfy requirements essential to both the survival and recovery of

a listed species. [Clarification of usage]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 14 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xi

Best available scientific and commercial data - to assure the quality of the biological,

ecological, and other information used in the implementation of the Act, it is the policy of the

Services to: (1) evaluate all scientific and other information used to ensure that it is reliable,

credible, and represents the best scientific and commercial data available; (2) gather and

impartially evaluate biological, ecological, and other information disputing official positions,

decisions, and actions proposed or taken by the Services; (3) document their evaluation of

comprehensive, technical information regarding the status and habitat requirements for a

species throughout its range, whether it supports or does not support a position being

proposed as an official agency position; (4) use primary and original sources of information as

the basis for recommendations; (5) retain these sources referenced in the official document as

part of the administrative record supporting an action; (6) collect, evaluate, and complete all

reviews of biological, ecological, and other relevant information within the schedules

established by the Act, appropriate regulations, and applicable policies; and (7) require

management-level review of documents developed and drafted by Service biologists to verify

and assure the quality of the science used to establish official positions, decisions, and actions

taken by the Services during their implementation of the Act. [59 FR 34271 (July 1, 1994)]

Biological assessment - information prepared by, or under the direction of, a Federal agency

to determine whether a proposed action is likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or

designated critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of species that are proposed

for listing; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Biological assessments must be

prepared for "major construction activities." See 50 CFR §402.02. The outcome of this

biological assessment determines whether formal consultation or a conference is necessary. 

[50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.12]

Biological opinion - document which includes: (1) the opinion of the Fish and Wildlife

Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service as to whether or not a Federal action is likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of designated critical habitat; (2) a summary of the information on which the

opinion is based; and (3) a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or

designated critical habitat. [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.14(h)]

Candidate species - plant and animal taxa considered for possible addition to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Species. These are taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service

has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance

of a proposal to list, but issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority

listing actions. [61 FR 7596-7613 (February 28, 1996)]

Conference - a process of early interagency cooperation involving informal or formal

discussions between a Federal agency and the Services pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the Act

regarding the likely impact of an action on proposed species or proposed critical habitat. 

Conferences are: (1) required for proposed Federal actions likely to jeopardize proposed

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 15 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xii

species, or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat; (2) designed to help Federal

agencies identify and resolve potential conflicts between an action and species conservation

early in a project's planning; and (3) designed to develop recommendations to minimize or

avoid adverse effects to proposed species or proposed critical habitat. [50 CFR §402.02, 50

CFR §402.10]

Conservation - the terms "conserve," "conserving" and "conservation" mean to use and the

use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or

threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the] Act are no

longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities

associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement,

habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in

the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be

otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking. [ESA §3(3)]

Conservation measures - are actions to benefit or promote the recovery of listed species that

are included by the Federal agency as an integral part of the proposed action. These actions

will be taken by the Federal agency or applicant, and serve to minimize or compensate for,

project effects on the species under review. These may include actions taken prior to the

initiation of consultation, or actions which the Federal agency or applicant have committed to

complete in a biological assessment or similar document.

Conservation recommendations - the Services' non-binding suggestions resulting from

formal or informal consultation that: (1) identify discretionary measures a Federal agency can

take to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a proposed action on listed or proposed

species, or designated or proposed critical habitat; (2) identify studies, monitoring, or research

to develop new information on listed or proposed species, or designated or proposed critical

habitat; and (3) include suggestions on how an action agency can assist species conservation 

as part of their action and in furtherance of their authorities under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. 

[50 CFR §402.02]

Constituent elements - physical and biological features of designated or proposed critical

habitat essential to the conservation of the species, including, but not limited to: (1) space for

individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,

minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for

breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats

that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographic and

ecological distributions of a species. [ESA §3(5)(A)(i), 50 CFR §424.12(b)]

Critical habitat - for listed species consists of: (1) the specific areas within the geographical

area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of

section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (constituent

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 16 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xiii

elements) (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special

management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area

occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of

the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the

conservation of the species. [ESA §3 (5)(A)] Designated critical habitats are described in 50

CFR §17 and 226.

Cumulative effects - are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving

Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal

action subject to consultation. [50 CFR §402.02] This definition applies only to section 7

analyses and should not be confused with the broader use of this term in the National

Environmental Policy Act or other environmental laws.

Designated non-Federal representative - the person, agency, or organization designated by

the Federal agency as its representative to conduct informal consultation or prepare a

biological assessment. The non-Federal representative must be designated by giving written

notice to the Director. If a permit or license applicant is involved and is not the designated

non-Federal representative, then the applicant and the Federal agency must agree on the

choice of the designated non-Federal representative. [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.08]

Destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat - a direct or indirect alteration that

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a

listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying

any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to

be critical. [50 CFR §402.02]

Director - the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration; or the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director; or their respective

authorized representative. [50 CFR §402.02]

Distinct Population Segment - "population," or "distinct population segment," are terms

with specific meaning when used for listing, delisting, and reclassification purposes to describe

a discrete vertebrate stock that may be added or deleted from the list of endangered and

threatened species. The use of the term "distinct population segment" will be consistent with

the Services' population policy. [61 FR 4722-4725 (February 7, 1996)]

Early consultation - a preliminary consultation requested by a Federal agency on behalf of a

prospective permit or license applicant prior to the filing of an application for a Federal permit

or license. [50 CFR §402.11]

Effects of the action - the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical

habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 17 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xiv

that action. These effects are considered along with the environmental baseline and the

predicted cumulative effects to determine the overall effects to the species for purposes of

preparing a biological opinion on the proposed action. [50 CFR §402.02] The environmental

baseline covers past and present impacts of all Federal actions within the action area. This

includes the effects of existing Federal projects that have not yet come in for their section 7

consultation.

Endangered species - any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. [ESA §3(6)]

Environmental baseline - the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private

actions and other human activities in an action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed

Federal projects in an action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7

consultation, and the impact of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the

consultation in process. [50 CFR §402.02]

ESA - the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

FWS - the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Federal agency - any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. [ESA

§3(7)]

Fish or wildlife - any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any

mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which

protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile,

mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or

offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. [ESA §3(8)]

Formal consultation - a process between the Services and a Federal agency or applicant that:

(1) determines whether a proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat; (2) begins

with a Federal agency's written request and submittal of a complete initiation package; and (3)

concludes with the issuance of a biological opinion and incidental take statement by either of

the Services. If a proposed Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical

habitat, formal consultation is required (except when the Services concur, in writing, that a

proposed action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat). 

[50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.14]

Habitat Conservation Plan - Under section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a planning document

that is a mandatory component of an incidental take permit application, also known as a

Conservation Plan.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 18 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xv

Incidental take - take of listed fish or wildlife species that results from, but is not the purpose

of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a Federal agency or applicant. [50

CFR §402.02]

Indirect effects - those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and

are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. [50 CFR §402.02]

Informal consultation - an optional process that includes all discussions and correspondence

between the Services and a Federal agency or designated non-Federal representative, prior to

formal consultation, to determine whether a proposed Federal action may affect listed species

or critical habitat. This process allows the Federal agency to utilize the Services' expertise to

evaluate the agency's assessment of potential effects or to suggest possible modifications to

the proposed action which could avoid potentially adverse effects. If a proposed Federal

action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required

(except when the Services concur, in writing, that a proposed action "is not likely to adversely

affect" listed species or designated critical habitat). [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.13]

Interdependent actions - actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed

action. [50 CFR §402.02]

Interrelated actions - actions that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action

for their justification. [50 CFR §402.02]

Is likely to adversely affect - the appropriate finding in a biological assessment (or

conclusion during informal consultation) if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as a

direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions,

and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of "is not likely to

adversely affect"). In the event the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the

listed species, but is also likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proposed action "is

likely to adversely affect" the listed species. If incidental take is anticipated to occur as a

result of the proposed action, an "is likely to adversely affect" determination should be made. 

An "is likely to adversely affect" determination requires the initiation of formal section 7

consultation. [Clarification of usage]

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical habitat - the

appropriate conclusion when the action agency or the Services identify situations where the

proposed action is likely to jeopardize the proposed species or adversely modify the proposed

critical habitat. If this conclusion is reached, conference is required. [Clarification of usage]

Is not likely to adversely affect - the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species

are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are

contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species. Insignificant

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 19 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xvi

effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. 

Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a

person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant

effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur. [Clarification of usage]

Jeopardize the continued existence of - to engage in an action that reasonably would be

expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and

recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution

of that species. [50 CFR §402.02]

Letter - refers to all written correspondence, such as letters, memoranda, or electronic mail

messages, relating to a formal or informal consultation. [Clarification of usage]

Listed species - any species of fish, wildlife or plant which has been determined to be

endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. [50 CFR §402.02]

Major construction activity - a construction project (or other undertaking having similar

physical effects) which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). [50 CFR §402.02]

May affect - the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on

listed species or designated critical habitat. When the Federal agency proposing the action

determines that a "may affect" situation exists, then they must either initiate formal

consultation or seek written concurrence from the Services that the action "is not likely to

adversely affect" [see definition above] listed species. [Clarification of usage]

Minor change rule - when preparing incidental take statements, the Services must specify

reasonable and prudent measures and their implementing terms and conditions to minimize the

impacts of incidental take that do not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or

timing of the action, and that involve only minor changes. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(2)]

NMFS - the National Marine Fisheries Service.

No effect - the appropriate conclusion when the action agency determines its proposed action

will not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat. [Clarification of usage]

Occupied critical habitat - critical habitat that contains individuals of the species at the time

of the project analysis. A species does not have to occupy critical habitat throughout the year

for the habitat to be considered occupied (e.g. migratory birds). Subsequent events affecting

the species may result in this habitat becoming unoccupied. [Clarification of usage]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 20 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xvii

Plant - any member of the plant kingdom, including seeds, roots, and other parts thereof. 

[ESA §3(14)]

Population - "population," or "distinct population segment," are terms with specific meaning

when used for listing, delisting, and reclassification purposes to describe a discrete vertebrate

stock that may be added or deleted from the list of endangered and threatened species. The

term "population" will be confined to those distinct population segments officially listed, or

eligible for listing, consistent with section 4(a) of the Act and the Services' population policy.

[61 FR 4722-4725 (February 7, 1996)]

Preliminary biological opinion - the opinion issued as a result of early consultation. [50

CFR §402.02]

Programmatic consultation - consultation addressing an agency's multiple actions on a

program, regional or other basis. [Clarification of usage] 

Proposed critical habitat - habitat proposed in the Federal Register to be designated as

critical habitat, or habitat proposed to be added to an existing critical habitat designation,

under section 4 of the Act for any listed or proposed species. [50 CFR §402.02]

Proposed species - any species of fish, wildlife or plant that is proposed in the Federal

Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. [50 CFR §402.02]

Reasonable and prudent alternatives - recommended alternative actions identified during

formal consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose

of the action, that can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal

authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and that the

Director believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed

species or the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. [50 CFR

§402.02]

Reasonable and prudent measures - actions the Director believes necessary or appropriate

to minimize the impacts, i.e., amount or extent, of incidental take. [50 CFR §402.02]

Recovery - improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no

longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. [50 CFR §402.02]

Recovery unit - management subsets of the listed species that are created to establish

recovery goals or carrying out management actions. To lessen confusion in the context of

section 7 and other Endangered Species Act activities, a subset of an animal or plant species

that needs to be identified for recovery management purposes will be called a "recovery unit"

instead of a "population." [Clarification of usage]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 21 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xviii

Section 4 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, outlining

procedures and criteria for: (1) identifying and listing threatened and endangered species; (2)

identifying, designating, and revising critical habitat; (3) developing and revising recovery

plans; and (4) monitoring species removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. 

[ESA §4]

Section 7 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, outlining

procedures for interagency cooperation to conserve Federally listed species and designated

critical habitats. Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to further

the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with

the Services to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing

actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely

modify designated critical habitat. Other paragraphs of this section establish the requirement

to conduct conferences on proposed species; allow applicants to initiate early consultation;

require FWS and NMFS to prepare biological opinions and issue incidental take statements. 

Section 7 also establishes procedures for seeking exemptions from the requirements of section

7(a)(2) from the Endangered Species Committee. [ESA §7]

Section 7 consultation - the various section 7 processes, including both consultation and

conference if proposed species are involved. [50 CFR §402]

Section 9 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that prohibits the

taking of endangered species of fish and wildlife. Additional prohibitions include: (1) import

or export of endangered species or products made from endangered species; (2) interstate or

foreign commerce in listed species or their products; and (3) possession of unlawfully taken

endangered species. [ESA §9]

Section 10 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that provides

exceptions to section 9 prohibitions. The exceptions most relevant to section 7 consultations

are takings allowed by two kinds of permits issued by the Services: (1) scientific take permits

and (2) incidental take permits. The Services can issue permits to take listed species for

scientific purposes, or to enhance the propagation or survival of listed species. The Services

can also issue permits to take listed species incidental to otherwise legal activity. [ESA §10]

Service(s) - the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (or both).

Species - includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population

segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. [ESA

§3(16)]

Survival - For determination of jeopardy/adverse modification: the species' persistence as

listed or as a recovery unit, beyond the conditions leading to its endangerment, with sufficient

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 22 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xix

resilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerment. Said another way, survival

is the condition in which a species continues to exist into the future while retaining the

potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by a species with a sufficient 

population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of

sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists in an environment

providing all requirements for completion of the species' entire life cycle, including

reproduction, sustenance, and shelter. [Clarification of usage]

Take - to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt

to engage in any such conduct. [ESA §3(19)] Harm is further defined by FWS to include

significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species

by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass

is defined by FWS as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an

extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited

to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. [50 CFR §17.3]

Threatened species - any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. [ESA §3(20)]

Unoccupied critical habitat - critical habitat not occupied (i.e., not permanently or

seasonally occupied) by the listed species at the time of the project analysis. The habitat may

be suitable, but the species has been extirpated from this portion of its range. Conversely,

critical habitat may have been designated in areas unsuitable for the species, but restorable to

suitability with proper management, if the area is necessary to either stabilize the population

or assure eventual recovery of a listed species. As recovery proceeds, this formerly

unoccupied habitat may become occupied.

Some designated, unoccupied habitat may never be occupied by the species, but was

designated since it is essential for conserving the species because it maintains factors

constituting the species' habitat. For example, critical habitat may be designated for an

upstream area maintaining the hydrology of the species' habitat downstream. [Clarification of

usage]

Wildlife - See "fish or wildlife".

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 23 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 7

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.] outlines the

procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve Federally listed species and

designated critical habitats.

Proactive Conservation Efforts by Federal Agencies

Section 7(a)(1) directs the Secretary (Secretary of the Interior/Secretary of Commerce) to

review other programs administered by them and utilize such programs to further the purposes

of the Act. It also directs all other Federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of species listed

pursuant to the Act.

This section of the Act makes it clear that all Federal agencies should participate in the

conservation and recovery of listed threatened and endangered species. Under this provision,

Federal agencies often enter into partnerships and Memoranda of Understanding with the Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for

implementing and funding conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans

developed for listed species. Biologists for the Services should encourage the development of

these types of partnerships and planning efforts to develop pro-active approaches to listed

species management.

Avoiding Adverse Effects of Federal Actions

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure

that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated

critical habitat. In fulfilling these requirements, each agency must use the best scientific and

commercial data available. This section of the Act defines the consultation process, which is

further developed in regulations promulgated at 50 CFR §402.

The Handbook

This handbook was primarily developed to aid FWS and NMFS biologists implementing the

section 7 consultation process. The purpose of the handbook is to provide information and

guidance on the various consultation processes outlined in the regulations. Additionally, the

handbook will ensure consistent implementation of consultation procedures by those

biologists responsible for carrying out section 7 activities. Chapters of the handbook deal

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 24 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxi

with major consultation processes, including Informal, Formal, Emergency, and Special

Consultations; and Conferences.

Standardized language is provided for incorporation into Biological Opinion documents to

achieve consistency and to ensure that all consultation documents are complete from a

regulatory standpoint. Background information and example documents are provided in

Appendices. Although primarily targeted towards employees of the Services, other groups 

participating in the consultation process, including other Federal agencies; State, local, and

tribal governments; and private individuals, consultants, and industry groups should find the

handbook helpful in explaining section 7 processes and providing examples of various types of

consultations.

This handbook will be updated periodically as new regulations and policies are developed

affecting implementation of the section 7 regulations, or as new consultation or assessment

techniques evolve, and as additional examples or graphics become available.

The Washington Offices of the Services have the lead for preparation of the handbook. 

Regional offices are encouraged to develop example documents appropriate for their

geographical area and individual situations, and to coordinate with other Federal and State

agencies in distributing these documents.

Consultation Framework

Use of Sound Science

An overriding factor in carrying out consultations should always be the use of the best

available scientific and commercial data to make findings regarding the status of a listed

species, the effects of a proposed action on the species or critical habitat, and the

determination of jeopardy/no jeopardy to listed species or destruction or adverse

modification/no destruction or adverse modification to designated critical habitats.

The Services have jointly published a policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered

Species Act [59 FR 34271 (July 1, 1994)]. This policy calls for review of all scientific and

other information used by the Services to prepare biological opinions, incidental take

statements, and biological assessments, to ensure that any information used by the Services to

implement the Act is reliable, credible, and represents the best scientific and commercial data

available.

Flexibility and Innovation

The section 7 process achieves greatest flexibility when coordination between all involved

agencies and non-Federal representatives, and the Services, begins early. Often, proposed

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 25 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * * 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxii

actions can be modified so there is no need for formal consultation. The Services should

ensure that all information needed to make an informed decision is made available. It is

particularly critical when formal consultation begins that all parties are fully involved in

providing information and discussing project options. Although it is the responsibility of the

Services to make the determination of jeopardy or destruction/adverse modification in the

biological opinion, action agencies and applicants should be fully informed and involved in the

development of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and

Terms and Conditions to minimize the impacts of incidental take. Biologists should be

creative in problem solving and look for ways to conserve listed species while still

accommodating project goals.

Coordination

The Services have a policy to ensure coordination with State Agencies for gathering

information in implementing the consultation program. [59 FR 34274-34275 (July 1, 1994)] 

The Services have a joint policy on coordination with tribal governments. Secretarial Order

#32306 (June 5, 1997) entitled "American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust

Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act" recognizes that the consultation process

should include input from affected tribal governments. State and tribal government biologists

often have information available that is pertinent to the description of the action area or to the

species of interest in the consultation.

Shortening Timeframes

Recently, the Services have been implementing measures to streamline consultation processes. 

Examples include projects reviewed under the Northwest Forest Plan and nationwide Timber

Salvage Program. These procedures have been able to effectively shorten consultation

timeframes without giving up any protection for listed species/designated critical habitats or

the use and review of the best available information. This has been achieved through

enhanced interagency coordination, development of guidelines for implementation of a larger

program (i.e. timber salvage) which can tier to an individual project (timber sale), and by

providing consultation simultaneously with project analysis under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). Biologists for the Services are encouraged to review examples of these

streamlined consultations and to look for ways to incorporate streamlining techniques into

other consultation procedures.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 26 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-1

CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO SECTION 7 CONSULTATION

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) provides some of the most valuable and

powerful tools to conserve listed species, assist with species' recovery, and help protect

critical habitat. It mandates all Federal agencies to determine how to use their existing

authorities to further the purposes of the Act to aid in recovering listed species, and to address

existing and potential conservation issues.

A review of the legislative history of the Act and its amendments makes it clear the drafters of

the legislation were designing a law with the strength to protect species, while at the same

time creating a mechanism encouraging a productive dialogue between project proponents and

the agencies charged with implementing the Act.

Section 7(a)(1) directs the Secretary (Secretary of the Interior/Secretary of Commerce) to

review other programs administered by them and utilize such programs to further the purposes

of the Act. It also directs all other Federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of species listed

pursuant to the Act.

This section of the Act makes it clear that all Federal agencies should participate in the

conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species. Under this provision,

Federal agencies often enter into partnerships and Memoranda of Understanding with the Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for

implementing and funding conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans

developed for listed species. Biologists for the Services should encourage the development of

these types of partnerships and planning efforts to develop pro-active approaches to listed

species management, rather than reacting when a conflict occurs.

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure

that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated

critical habitat. In fulfilling these requirements, each agency is to use the best scientific and

commercial data available. This section of the Act sets out the consultation process, which is

further implemented by regulation (50 CFR §402).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 27 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-2

This handbook was developed to aid Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) biologists implementing the section 7 consultation process. 

Throughout the handbook, the term "Services" will be used to generically refer to both

agencies together. However, this is not meant to imply that all actions discussed herein are

taken by the Services jointly. If a particular section applies to only one agency, the acronyms

FWS or NMFS will be used.

By law, section 7 consultation is a cooperative effort involving affected parties engaged in

analyzing effects posed by proposed actions on listed species or critical habitat(s). This

handbook demonstrates the latitude available within section 7 to work with applicants and

agencies during this analytical process.

The following thoughts are offered as an expression of the philosophy guiding section 7

work.

o The biology comes first. Know the facts; state the case; and provide supporting

documentation. Keep in mind the FWS's ecosystem approach to conservation of

endangered and threatened species [59 FR 34273-34274 (July 1, 1994)].

o Base the determination of jeopardy/no jeopardy on a careful analysis of the best

available scientific and commercial data. Never determine the conclusion of a biological

opinion before completing the analysis of the best available data.

o Clarity and conciseness are extremely important. They make consultation documents

more understandable to everyone. A biological opinion should clearly explain the

proposed project, its impacts on the affected species, and the Services' recommendations. 

It should be written so the general public could trace the path of logic to the biological

conclusion and complete enough to withstand the rigors of a legal review.

o Strong interpersonal skills serve section 7 biologists well. Establishing a positive

working relationship with action agencies enhances the Services' ability to do the job

successfully. Remember, you are trying to assist the agency in meeting their section 7

responsibilities under the Act.

o Present a positive image as a representative of your Service.

o Section 7 consultation is a cooperative process. The Services do not have all the

answers. Actively seek the views of the action agency and its designated representatives,

and involve them in your opinion preparation, especially in the development of

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 28 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-3

reasonable and prudent alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, terms and

conditions to minimize the impacts of incidental take, and conservation

recommendations.

o Use all aspects of section 7, especially opportunities for informal consultation where

solutions can be worked out prior to the structured process mandated by formal

consultation. Be creative, and make the process work to the species' advantage.

o It is important to be consistent throughout a species' range when implementing section 7. 

Be flexible but not inconsistent. Study the law, the regulations and this handbook. 

Know the authorities and be flexible when it is prudent, but always stand firm for

maintaining the substantive standards of section 7.

o Take advantage of professional support within and outside the Services. For example,

the FWS Division of Engineering can provide valuable technical review of development

proposals. Attorneys in the Regional and field offices of the FWS Solicitor/NMFS

General Counsel can offer advice on section 7 regulations and the latitude within which

to conduct consultation. Similarly, the Services' law enforcement personnel may be able

to answer questions about direct or incidental take.

o Strive to solve problems locally.

o An effective section 7 biologist is a good teacher and a good student. Seek every

opportunity to teach the section 7 process within and outside the Services in an

informative and non-threatening way. Learn all you can about other Services' programs,

Federal action agency's mandates and procedures, and State/tribal/private

agency's/client's needs and expectations.

1.2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

(A) Lead Regions for Consultation

Fish and Wildlife Service

When a proposed action takes place in more than one FWS Region, a lead FWS Region is

assigned responsibility for the consultation. Generally, the lead FWS Region is the one in

which the greatest impact or the largest number of affected species occur. The Regions

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 29 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-4

involved agree on the appropriate lead Region to prepare and sign the biological opinion. If

agreement cannot be reached, the matter is referred to the FWS Director.

Coordination between the FWS consultation lead Region and the FWS recovery lead Region

becomes necessary when a FWS Region consults on a species for which it does not have

recovery lead. The level of coordination is mutually agreed to and the lead FWS recovery

Region may release other FWS Regions from responsibility for coordinating on no jeopardy

or no adverse modification opinions. The FWS Regional Director signing the biological

opinion is responsible for its contents, and has final authority to make any jeopardy or other

finding. However, any changes the lead Region may make in jeopardy or adverse

modification determinations initially made by other Regions must be coordinated before

multi-Region opinions are finalized.

Requests for consultation from agencies addressing geographically broad-based or extensive

programs are referred to the FWS's Washington Office Division of Endangered Species. This

Division coordinates with the Regions to decide whether to recommend formation of a

national team or assign the consultation to a lead FWS Region for coordination with other

involved Regions. A national team may report to a designated Regional Director or the

Assistant Director for Ecological Services (AES). AES submits a recommendation to the

FWS Director for consideration. The Director's decision will be communicated to the

involved Regions.

National Marine Fisheries Service

Generally, the NMFS Regions are responsible for conducting consultations on activities

occurring within their Region. If the activity occurs in more than one Region or the species

covered by the consultation occurs in more than one Region, the Regions mutually decide

upon a lead Region. If there is no agreement on a lead Region, then the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries (AA) designates a lead Region. The Endangered Species Division

in the Office of Protected Resources (F/PR) conducts programmatic consultations and those

with a national scope (e.g. EPA's Multisector general permit for stormwater). Currently, all

formal biological opinions, with the exception of those conducted by the Southwest and

Northwest Regions for anadromous species, are forwarded to the Headquarters Endangered

Species Division for review and final clearance. For activities that the Southwest or

Northwest Regional Director (RD) considers controversial, the RD must consult with the

Director, Office of Protected Resources (Office Director), and advise the AA before the final

action is taken.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 30 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-5

(B) Signature Authority 

Fish and Wildlife Service

The FWS's responsibility for implementing section 7 consultation and conference procedures

generally rests with the Regional Directors. The Assistant Director for Ecological Services is

the responsible official if the biological opinion or conference opinion is to be signed in the

Washington Office. FWS Regional Directors and the Assistant Director for Ecological

Services can delegate responsibility and signature authority on non-jeopardy biological

opinions and conference opinions to subordinate line officers. For example, FWS Field Office

supervisors have been given signature authority on non-jeopardy biological opinions for intraService (internal FWS) consultations (see Appendix E for the Intra-Service Consultation

Handbook). However, signatory authority for biological opinions finding jeopardy or

adverse modification has not been delegated below the Regional Director/Assistant Director

level.

National Marine Fisheries Service

The NMFS Director, Office of Protected Resources, has signature authority for all formal

consultations except where this authority has been delegated to the Regions. In 1995, as a

result of an increasing number of consultations concerning listed salmon, the Southwest and

Northwest Regional Directors were delegated authority to sign all biological opinions for

anadromous species, unless the opinion concerns an activity of the Department of Commerce

(e.g., fishery harvests). All opinions concerning a Department of Commerce activity are

signed by the Office Director.

The Office Director also signs biological opinions related to issuance of section 10 research

permits, section 10 incidental take permits (except for anadromous species) or activities such

as issuance of regulations. NMFS Regional Directors have signature authority for most

informal consultations. However, the Office Director has signature authority for informal

consultations on activities that cross regional boundaries or have national significance.

(C) Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation

Fish and Wildlife Service

Intra-Service consultations and conferences will consider effects of the FWS's actions on

listed, proposed and candidate species. Candidate species are treated as if they are proposed

for listing for purposes of conducting internal FWS conferencing. Although including

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 31 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-6

candidate species is not required by law, it is Service policy to consider candidate species

when making natural resource decisions. Therefore, candidate species will be considered

during internal FWS conferencing. FWS units will consult or confer with the appropriate

FWS Ecological Services field office on actions they authorize, fund, or carry out that may

affect listed, proposed or candidate species or designated or proposed critical habitat. These

actions include refuge operations, public use programs, private lands and federal aid activities,

as well as promulgating regulations and issuing permits. A Service office requesting formal

consultation provides the data required by the regulations at 50 CFR §402.14(c) and is treated

as any other action agency (see Appendix E for a copy of the Intra-Service Consultation

Handbook). Formal intra-Service consultation should occur on the proposed issuance of any

section 10 permit.

National Marine Fisheries Service

NMFS conducts consultations on all activities that it authorizes, funds or permits that may

affect listed species. Conferencing is conducted on proposed species. While NMFS does not

consult on candidate species, they are considered when making natural resource decisions. 

Actions that warrant consultation includes fishery management plans, amendments to plans,

permits issued under section 10 of the Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

for research or incidental taking, and regulations issued under the Act, MMPA and Magnuson

Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Biological opinions on these activities as well as

other Commerce activities are reviewed and signed by the Director, Office of Protected

Species.

(D) Information Standards and Sources

Best available scientific and commercial data

The Act requires the action agency to provide the best scientific and commercial data available

concerning the impact of the proposed project on listed species or designated critical habitat. 

If relevant data are known to be available to the agency or will be available as the result of

ongoing or imminent studies, the Services should request those data and any other analyses

required by the regulations at 50 CFR §402.14(c), or suggest that consultation be postponed

until those data or analyses are available as outlined in section 4.4(A) of this handbook.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 32 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-7

Where significant data gaps exist there are two options: (1) if the action agency concurs, 

extend the due date of the biological opinion until sufficient information is developed for a

more complete analysis; or (2) develop the biological opinion with the available information

giving the benefit of the doubt to the species. These alternatives must be discussed with the

action agency and the applicant, if any. Based on this discussion, a decision regarding the

preparation of the biological opinion should be made and documented in the administrative

record of that opinion. This subsequent analysis may have minor or major consequences

(worst case scenario) depending on the significance of the missing data to the effects

determination. The action agency also should be advised that if and when additional data

become available, reinitiation of consultation may be required.

If the action agency, or the applicant, insists consultation be completed without the data or

analyses requested, the biological opinion or informal consultation letter should document that

certain analyses or data were not provided and why that information would have been helpful

in improving the data base for the consultation. In formal consultation, this statement usually

appears in the "effects of the action" section. The Services are then expected to provide the

benefit of the doubt to the species concerned with respect to such gaps in the information base

(H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 697, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. 12 (1979)). This subsequent analysis may

have minor or major consequences (worst case scenario) depending on the significance of the

missing data to the effects determination. The action agency also should be advised that if and

when further data become available, the need for reinitiation of consultation may be triggered.

Section 7 biologists should seek out available information from credible sources such as listing

packages, recovery plans, active recovery teams, species experts, State/tribal wildlife and plant

experts, universities, peer-reviewed journals and State Heritage programs. Prior consultations

on the species also can provide information on baseline and cumulative effects on the species

and its habitat, and should provide the species status and environmental baseline data upon

which subsequent consultations are based.

An overriding factor in carrying out consultations should always be the use of the best

available scientific and commercial data to make findings regarding the status of a listed

species, the effects of a proposed action on the species or critical habitat, and the

determination of jeopardy/no jeopardy to listed species or destruction or adverse

modification/no destruction or adverse modification to designated critical habitats.

The Services have jointly published a policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered

Species Act [59 FR 34271 (July 1, 1994)] (see copy in Appendix A). This policy calls for

review of all scientific and other information used to prepare biological opinions, incidental

take statements, and biological assessments, to ensure that any information used by the

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 33 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-8

Services to implement the Act is reliable, credible, and represents the best scientific and

commercial data available.

Writing and bibliographic style

o In section 7 consultation documents, keep the first letter of the word "section" lower

cased, except when it begins a sentence.

o Write and edit consultation documents according to:

(1) the Council of Biology Editors, Inc. (CBE) Style Manual, 6th edition, (1994),

which outlines prose style for scientific writing;

(2) the Department of the Interior's rules of plain English as found in:

(a) "Readable Regulations: Eleven Models" for Department of the Interior

bureaus written by The Murawski Group, Washington DC (1995)

(b) "How to Write Regulations and Other Legal Documents in Clear English" by

the American Institute for Research, Document Design Center, Washington, DC

(1991)

(c) "Plain English, a Better Way to Write Our Rules", memo from FWS Assistant

Director for Ecological Services to Assistant Regional Directors (June 12, 1996)

o Letters and memoranda on non-technical issues should be edited according to the

conventions established by the Government Printing Office Style Manual.

o Citations included in text should comply with the CBE Style Manual. Bibliographic

references should use the following formats:

1. Single author book.

Tobin, R. 1990. The expendable future: U.S. politics and the protection of

biological diversity. Duke University Press; Durham, North Carolina.

2. Multiple author book.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 34 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-9

Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and

patch dynamics. Academic Press, Inc.; New York, New York.

3. Scientific papers (spell out the entire name of the journal).

Ahlgren, I.F. and C.E. Ahlgren. 1960. Ecological effects of forest fires. Botanical

Review 46:304-310.

4. Unpublished reports (biological assessments, status surveys, section 6 reports, etc.). 

Cite the document as unpublished. Also include the author's name and the group it

was prepared for, as well as their location.

Helms and Associates. 1992. Results of a diving mussel survey conducted at the

Pattison Brothers, Inc. and Ag Products Co. facilities near Clayton, Iowa. 

Unpublished report prepared for Pattison Brothers, Inc.; Clayton, Iowa.

5. Personal communication. Include title, company, office, city and state.

Campbell, T. 1992. Personal communication. Biologist. Environmental Project

Office, Naval Air Weapons Station. China Lake, California.

6. Personal observation. Include title, company, office, city and state.

Bransfield, R. 1987. Personal observation. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Ecological

Services Ventura Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, California.

(E) Early Alerts

Fish and Wildlife Service

The FWS Regional Directors provide the FWS Washington Office with an early alert to

inform the Director of both draft and final biological opinions, preliminary biological opinions

(early consultation), and conference opinions of regional or national significance likely to

result in findings of jeopardy or adverse modification. The Region submits such alerts as

soon as the Services’ have completed the necessary analysis to determine if a jeopardy

biological opinion or conference opinion is warranted and consultation with the federal

agency/applicant has been unsuccessful in avoiding the jeopardy determination. Additionally, 

Regional Directors are encouraged to advise the Director of potentially controversial

consultations before an early alert is required.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 35 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-10

Submit the early alert to the Chief, Division of Endangered Species. The Division of

Endangered Species will prepare a cover memo and forward the early alert to the Assistant

Director for Ecological Services, who will forward it to the Director. Allow 10 days in

Washington to be sure the alert has been reviewed by the Director. Regional Directors must

first send in an early alert to Washington and obtain approval from the Director before signing

any draft and final biological opinions, preliminary biological opinions (early consultation),

and conference opinions of regional or national significance likely to result in findings of

jeopardy or adverse modification.

Use the following format:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 36 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-11

Exhibit 1-1. Format for an early alert

EARLY ALERT

Prepared for: Director State(s):

Date submitted: 

___________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE: Draft/Final [jeopardy/adverse modification] [opinion/conference] for the [name of

the project]

CONSULTING AGENCY/APPLICANT:

DATE CONSULTATION INITIATED:

DATE COMPLETION OF CONSULTATION IS DUE:

DATE OF ANY EXTENSIONS: (explain reason for extension)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (provide a brief summary)

EFFECT ON SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT: (provide a brief summary of effect on

[species/critical habitat])

I. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES: (list)

A . HAVE YOU COORDINATED WITH THE AGENCY/APPLICANT TO

DEVELOP THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES? (yes) 

(no) EXPLAIN.

B. HAVE YOU COORDINATED WITH ALL AFFECTED TRIBAL

GOVERNMENTS TO DEVELOP THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT

ALTERNATIVES PER SECRETARIAL ORDER #3206?

(yes) (no)EXPLAIN.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 37 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-12

C. IF NOT, HAVE THE PROPOSED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT

ALTERNATIVES BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE ACTION

AGENCY/APPLICANT? WHAT WAS THEIR REACTION?

D. IS THE AGENCY/APPLICANT WILLING TO INCORPORATE THE

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES AND AMEND THEIR

PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO AVOID A JEOPARDY/ADVERSE

MODIFICATION OPINION? (yes) (no) EXPLAIN WHY/WHY NOT.

E. IF THERE ARE NO REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES, WHAT

IS THE SCHEDULE FOR COORDINATING WITH THE

AGENCY/APPLICANT TO DEVELOP THEM? EXPLAIN.

II. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES: (list)

A. HAVE YOU COORDINATED WITH THE AGENCY/APPLICANT TO

DEVELOP THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES? (yes) (no) 

EXPLAIN.

B. IF NOT, HAVE THE PROPOSED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE ACTION AGENCY/APPLICANT? WHAT

WAS THEIR REACTION?

C. IS THE AGENCY/APPLICANT WILLING TO IMPLEMENT THE

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS

OF INCIDENTAL TAKE? (yes) (no) EXPLAIN WHY/WHY NOT.

D. IF THERE ARE NO REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES, WHAT IS

THE SCHEDULE FOR COORDINATING WITH THE AGENCY/APPLICANT

TO DEVELOP THEM? EXPLAIN.

III. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AFFECTED:

(list the Senators/Representatives and their Congressional district)

IV. EXPECTED REACTION OF AGENCY/APPLICANT/OTHER INTERESTED

PARTIES (tribes, States, NGOs):

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 38 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-13

REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACT: (name, office, phone number)

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 39 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-14

National Marine Fisheries Service

The NMFS Regions must provide the Chief of the Endangered Species Division and the

Director, Office of Protected Resources, advance notice of any biological opinions that may

result in a jeopardy or adverse modification conclusion and any biological opinion that is

potentially controversial whether or not it results in a jeopardy or adverse modification

conclusion. 

(F) Release of Draft Documents

Providing action agencies or applicants an opportunity to discuss a developing biological

opinion, preliminary opinion, or conference may result in productive discussions that may

reduce or eliminate adverse effects. If an action agency asks to review a draft opinion or a

draft conference report or opinion, the Services should provide a draft. The section 7

regulations do not specify how an action agency should ask for this review. Generally, a

telephone request from the equivalent of a field supervisor or higher official, documented in

the administrative record, is sufficient.

Applicants can request draft opinion/conference documents through the action agency. When

an action agency then requests this document for the applicant, the Services must inform the

action agency that, once released to an applicant, the document may no longer be considered

an interagency memorandum exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of

Information Act (5 USC §552(b)(5)).

If an action agency or an applicant has comments on a draft opinion or conference document,

the action agency must provide those comments to the Services in writing for the record. An

applicant may copy the Services with the comments it provides to the action agency. The

Services will consider an applicant's comments or concerns when they are officially

transmitted by the action agency. [50 CFR §402.14(g)(5)]

(G) Maintaining the Administrative Record

A good administrative record documenting and supporting a consultation and the resulting

biological opinion is important, especially if a biological opinion is challenged or questions are

raised concerning how or why certain conclusions were reached. At a minimum,

administrative records for significant informal consultations, concurrences, conferences, and

formal consultations should contain the following types of records as appropriate:

o letters, memoranda, public notices, or other documents requesting the consultation;

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 40 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-15

o summaries of meetings held, including dates, attendees, purpose, and results or

conclusions;

o summaries of field trips or site inspections, including dates, attendees, and photos of the

site;

o summaries of personal contacts between the biologist, the Federal agency, State or tribal

biologists, applicant, consultant, private citizens or interest groups;

o summaries of telephone conversations pertaining to the consultation, recorded on a

standard telephone conversation record form;

o written correspondence pertaining to the consultation, including correspondence from or

to a prospective permit or license applicant;

o electronic mail messages addressing meetings, field trips, personal contacts or

correspondence referenced above that are pertinent to the decision-making process;

o published material used in developing the consultation except bulky material, which can

be referenced; and

o other information used in the consultation process.

An example of the types of records that can be documented in an Administrative Record can

be found in Appendix C.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 41 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-1

CHAPTER 2 - COORDINATION

2.1 COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT FUNCTIONS

(A) Listing

Section 7 compliance may become necessary as soon as a species is proposed for listing or

critical habitat is proposed for designation. Conferences are required if a proposed action is

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species, or adversely modify or

destroy proposed critical habitat. Conferences generally base analyses of effects on the

species status, distribution and threat data included in proposed listing rules and/or constituent

elements described in proposed critical habitat rules. Other reliable data, such as published

studies, species accounts, and peer-reviewed journal articles are also considered. Conferences

conducted during the proposal period provide listing biologists with information to help refine

the analysis of threats, and species or habitat data collected during these conferences. The

final listing or critical habitat designation packages provide a primary data source for

consultations until recovery plans and recovery-related research become available.

(B) Recovery Planning and Implementation

The 1988 amendments to the Act require comprehensive recovery plans that include "a

description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the

plan's goal for the conservation and survival of the species." This required segment of

recovery plans should at a minimum, include the following: 

o numbers and distribution of recovery units;

o basic life history of the species and its relationships to its supporting habitat;

o natural and human-related factors affecting the species or its habitat, including

elements of the species' critical habitat (e.g., requirements for cover; nutriment;

effects of fire, flooding, and climatic features; symbionts, including pollinators;

effects of predators, competitors, and other limiting factors such as the need for

isolation from human-related activities or commensals), whose alteration can lead to

the species' decreased capability for survival;

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 42 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-2

o any distinction in species' behavior or required habitat needs if the species has a

different core area or need for another life cycle period (breeding, nonbreeding,

migrating or over wintering period); and

o tolerance of the species or essential elements of its habitat to human activities

(Exhibit 2-1).

Interrelationships exist between management actions outlined in recovery plans and the

consultation process. It is important for the section 7 biologist to be familiar with species'

recovery plans and to coordinate with the appropriate species recovery coordinator while

ensuring any reasonable and prudent alternatives or any reasonable and prudent measures

developed through the consultation process are consistent with recovery plan goals. Further,

management actions identified in a recovery plan can be used as Terms and Conditions of an

incidental take statement as long as they have the effect of minimizing the impact of incidental

take from the project, and are limited to minor changes. If recovery plans identify specific

habitats as essential for species' survival and recovery, close attention should be given to

actions that may affect that habitat. It is generally appropriate to use management actions

outlined in recovery plans as Conservation Recommendations.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 43 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-3

Exhibit 2-1. Discussion of species' tolerance to disturbance (from the draft

management plan for the Pawnee montane skipper

Populations in both the South and North Forks are needed to buffer against a single event or

combination of events eliminating the butterfly from one of the areas. Only activities with

negligible effects should be allowed without limit, and those with moderate effects should be

kept at or below some reasonable upper limit. Activities with major effects should be avoided

altogether. Activities of varying impact have been identified as follows:

1. Activities with no effect or slight effect:

(a) activities on the water or on the water's edge would have negligible effect on the

skipper's habitat, including, but are not limited to, fishing, boating, piers, and boat docks;

and (b) rights-of-way for power lines if less than 730 m, not treated with herbicides, and

if maintained for host and nectar plants.

2. Activities with moderate effects:

(a) campgrounds not located in the densest subpopulation areas (1-4), not located in

areas of major Liatris (principal food supply) density (150+ flowering stems/acre), and

without large areas covered with parking lots, lawns, ball fields, or scraped areas. 

Campsites should be widely spaced and heavy foot traffic should be confined to

designated paths; (b) narrow (1 lane with pullouts) paved or improved roads that avoid

areas of major Liatris concentrations, road verges and adjacent berms and cuts should be

managed to encourage growth of skipper nectar plants, and adjacent "brown-out"

herbicided strips should be avoided; and (c) low density housing or commercial

development that results in an aggregate of 5 percent or less of the suitable habitat of any

subpopulations rendered unsuitable by roads, structures, lawns, plantings, parking lots,

or associated activities.

3. Activities with major effects:

(a) any activity or combination of activities that eliminates more than 5 percent of any

subpopulation's habitat areas; (b) any habitat-displacing activity located in an area of

Liatris with 150 or more flowering stems/acre; and (c) any activity or development that

creates large blocks of unsuitable habitat -- large paved parking lots, wide paved roads

with broad graveled shoulders and adjacent herbiciding, wide power line rights-of-way

treated with herbicides, subdivisions with large lawns, cultivated plots, or heavily grazed

habitat.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 44 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-4

(C) Section 10 Coordination

Endangered and threatened species permits - section 10(a)(1)(A)

Section 10 of the Act provides exceptions for activities otherwise prohibited by section 9. 

Section 10(a)(1)(A) authorizes the Services to issue permits for scientific purposes or to

enhance the propagation or survival of listed species. The permitted activity must not operate

to the disadvantage of the species and must be consistent with the purposes and policy set

forth in section 2 of the Act. Formal intra-Service consultation is required for the issuance of

FWS Regional blanket permits. Section 7 consultation (see Appendix E for the FWS intraService consultation handbook) must also be conducted prior to issuance of a section

10(a)(1)(A) permit or a subpermit under the Regional blanket permit. Section 10(a)(1)(A)

permits are also required:

o when a reasonable and prudent alternative calls for scientific research that will result

in take of the species (this includes scientific research carried out by the Services);

o when the agency, applicant or contractor plans to carry out additional research not

required by an incidental take statement that would involve direct take (if this is

part of the action and direct take is contemplated, a permit is not needed); and

o for species surveys associated with biological assessments (usually developed during

informal consultation) that result in take, including harassment.

Habitat conservation planning - section 10(a)(1)(B)

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act allows non-Federal parties planning activities that have no

Federal nexus, but which could result in the incidental taking of listed animals, to apply for an

incidental take permit. The application must include a habitat conservation plan (HCP) laying

out the proposed actions, determining the effects of those actions on affected fish and wildlife

species and their habitats (often including proposed or candidate species), and defining

measures to minimize and mitigate adverse effects. The Services have developed a handbook

for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing, which should be

referenced for further information.

In some HCP planning areas, parties may strive to find a Federal nexus to avoid the HCP

process altogether. These parties should be advised of the differences between incidental take

capabilities under sections 7 and 10. Although the issuance of an incidental take permit under

section 10 must not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, section 10

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 45 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-5

expressly authorizes the Services to minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practical,

the adverse impacts to the species (supplying some benefit to the species such as land

acquisition or habitat restoration or enhancement to offset unavoidable effects of the action). 

Mitigation may or may not reduce the actual number of individuals the Services’ anticipate to

be taken as a result of project implementation. For incidental take considerations under

section 7, minimization of the level of take on the individuals affected is required. Also, the

incidental take statement in a section 7 biological opinion does not provide a "No Surprises

assurances" guarantee. The action agency is responsible for reinitiating consultation should

their actions result in exceeding the level of incidental take.

Whenever practical, consideration should be given to programmatic or ecoregion consultation

with Federal agencies having major programs in the HCP areas to facilitate overall

consultation and recovery actions for the species involved (see section 5.3).

Experimental populations - section 10(j)

Section 10(j) of the Act authorizes listed species to be released as experimental populations

outside their currently occupied range, but within probable historic habitat, to further species

conservation. Before making a release, the Services determine by rulemaking whether that

population is "essential" or "nonessential." An "essential experimental population" is a

reintroduced population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the

survival of the species in the wild. A "nonessential experimental population" is a reintroduced

population whose loss would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of

the species in the wild. For section 7 consultation purposes, section 10(j) requires the

following:

o any nonessential experimental population located outside a National Park or

National Wildlife Refuge System unit is treated as a proposed species (conference

may be conducted);

o any nonessential experimental population located within a National Park System or

National Wildlife Refuge System unit is treated as a threatened species (standard

consultations are conducted);

o any essential population is treated as a threatened species (standard consultations

are conducted, and special rules may allow take);

o critical habitat may be designated for essential experimental populations (standard

consultations are conducted), but not for nonessential experimental populations; and

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 46 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-6

o all populations of the species (including populations designated as experimental) are

considered to be a single listed entity when making jeopardy determinations or

other analyses in a section 7 consultation.

By definition, a "nonessential experimental population" is not essential to the continued

existence of the species. Therefore no proposed action impacting a population so designated

could lead to a jeopardy determination for the entire species.

A listed species that is reintroduced into its historic range without experimental population

status receives full protection under the Act.

2.2 COORDINATION WITH THE ACTION AGENCY AND APPLICANT

(A) Formal Consultations and Conferences

The Act requires action agencies to consult or confer with the Services when there is

discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action, whether apparent (issuance of a

new Federal permit), or less direct (State operation of a program that retains Federal

oversight, such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program). If there is

an applicant for a permit or license related to the Federal action, the applicant may be involved

in the consultation process (see section 2.2(E)).

Formal consultation becomes necessary when: (1) the action agency requests consultation

after determining the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitat [however, if

the Service concurs in writing that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any

listed species or critical habitat (i.e., the effects are completely beneficial, insignificant, or

discountable), then formal consultation is not required]; or (2) the Services, through informal

consultation, do not concur with the action agency's finding that the proposed action is not

likely to adversely affect the listed species or critical habitat.

An action agency shall confer with the Services if the action is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat. The conference process helps determine the likely

effect of the proposed action and any alternatives to avoid jeopardy to a proposed species or

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

When two or more Federal agencies are involved in an activity affecting listed species or

critical habitat, one agency is designated as the lead (50 CFR §402.07), often based on which

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 47 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-7

agency has the principal responsibility for the project (e.g., a dam is maintained to provide a 

pool for generating electricity - a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

responsibility, but the capacity behind the dam also provides flood storage - a Corps

responsibility. In this case, FERC has lead for the consultation as the dam would probably not

be there except for the power generation need). Although one agency has the lead, the other

still has to provide data for effects analyses and development of reasonable and prudent

alternatives and measures if its activities may affect listed species or critical habitat.

(B) Commitment of Resources during Consultation

"(d) After initiation of consultation required under subsection (a)(2), the Federal

agency and the permit or license applicant shall not make any irreversible or

irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the agency action which has the

effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and

prudent alternative measures which would not violate subsection (a)(2)."

 Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act

Section 7(d) was added to the Act in 1978 as part of the package that created the exemption

process. Congress intended this provision to avoid future Tellico Dam scenarios by

forbidding certain irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments during consultation,

thus keeping open all opportunities to develop reasonable and prudent alternatives.

Not all irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are prohibited. The

formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative must be foreclosed

by the resource commitment to violate section 7(d). Thus, resource commitments may occur

as long as the action agency retains sufficient discretion and flexibility to modify its action to

allow formulation and implementation of an appropriate reasonable and prudent alternative. 

Destroying potential alternative habitat within the project area, for example, could violate

section 7(d).

This section 7(d) restriction remains in effect from the determination of "may affect" until the

action agency advises the Services which reasonable and prudent alternative will be

implemented if the biological opinion finds jeopardy or adverse modification (Figure 2-1). 

Failure to observe this provision can disqualify the agency or applicant from seeking an

exemption under section 7.

The action agency may choose not to implement the Services' reasonable and prudent

alternative; instead, the action agency can choose to develop an alternative based on what they

perceive as the best available scientific and commercial data. It is the responsibility of the

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 48 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-8

action agency, not the Services, to determine the validity of the action agency's alternative. If

the agency's alternative is challenged in court, the standard for review will be whether the

decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. The validity

of the action agency's decision will determine whether section 7(a)(2) has been satisfied and

whether section 7(d) is applicable. If it is determined that the action agency's decision is not

valid, that agency would be taking the risk of noncompliance with the Act (51 FR 19940 (June

3, 1986)). 

The Services do not provide an opinion on the question of resource commitments. Under the

exemption process, that question is ultimately referred to the Endangered Species Committee

for resolution. However, the Services will notify Federal agencies of the section 7(d)

prohibition when formal consultation is initiated. Similarly, under section 7(c), biological

assessments must be completed for "major construction activities" before any contracts are

entered into or construction is begun.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 49 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-9

Figure 2-1. Application of section 7(d): irreversible or irretrievable commitment of

resources

Agency requests consultation, either formal or informal

I "May affect" situation exists; section 7(d)

formal consultation is required prohibition begins

II If:

A. The Services concur with a "not likely section 7(d)

to adversely affect" finding not applicable

B. The Services issue a no jeopardy/adverse section 7(d)

modification biological opinion, or the obligation expires

action agency chooses a reasonable and

prudent alternative from a jeopardy/adverse

modification opinion

C. Action agency chooses to disagree

with the Services' jeopardy/adverse

modification determination, or chooses

to implement an alternative that has not

been prescribed by the Services; and

1. The best available scientific and section 7(d)

commercial data support the obligation expires

agency decision

2. The action agency decision section 7(d)

is not justified by available applies

data

III Reinitiation of consultation is required section 7(d)

under 50 CFR §402.16 (Return to step II) applies

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 50 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-10

(C) Dealing with Nonresponsive Agencies 

Agencies that refuse to consult or confer

When an action agency disagrees or does not respond to the Services' informal suggestions for

consultation or conference, the Services should send a letter requesting the agency to initiate

such action. The letter notifies the agency of its responsibilities under the Act, and presents a

clear case for the Services' determination of "may affect" for listed species or "likely to

jeopardize" for proposed species. Possible adverse modification of designated or proposed

critical habitat is treated similarly. If the agency still refuses to consult, the issue should be

elevated to the Regional Office of either the FWS or the NMFS, depending upon the species

involved. For the FWS, the elevation would be to the appropriate Regional Director. For the

NMFS, the elevation would be to either the appropriate Regional Director, or the Director -

Office of Protected Resources at the headquarters office.

The Regional Director can pursue the need to consult with the action agency. The Services

cannot force an action agency to consult. However, if the proposed action results in take of a

listed fish or wildlife species, the matter should be referred to either the FWS Law

Enforcement Division and the Office of the Solicitor, or the NMFS Office of Law

Enforcement and the Office of General Counsel - depending upon which species are involved. 

Additionally, if the action agency requests consultation after-the-fact, that consultation cannot

eliminate any section 9 liability for take that has occurred already (Appendix D, Solicitor's

opinion #SO-5).

Generally, the Services do not provide an opinion or conference report until the agency has

identified a "may affect" situation; such an opinion or report could be challenged as

incomplete where no consultation (discussion) with the agency took place. However, in some

cases the Services and the action agency may have an agreement allowing consultations to be

conducted without the agency determining that there is a may affect situation.

Agencies that refuse to reinitiate consultation

When consultation needs to be reinitiated but the action agency neither agrees nor responds,

the Services should send a letter clearly outlining the change of circumstances supporting the

need for reinitiation. The letter notifies the agency of its responsibilities under the Act, and

presents a clear case for why the Services' have determined that one or more of the four

general conditions for reinitiating consultation have been triggered (50 CFR 402.16). If the

agency still refuses to consult, the issue should be elevated to the Regional Office of either the

FWS or the NMFS, depending upon the species involved. For the FWS, the elevation would

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 51 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-11

be to the appropriate Regional Director. For NMFS, the elevation would be to either the

appropriate Regional Administrator, or the Director - Office of Protected Resources at the

headquarters office. They can pursue the need to reinitiate consultation with the action

agency. 

Although the Services’ can not require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation if they

choose not to do so, any unauthorized "take" should be referred to either the FWS Law

Enforcement Division and the Office of the Solicitor, or the NMFS Office of Law

Enforcement and the Office of General Counsel - depending upon which species are involved.

(D) Compliance with Section 7(a)(2)

The action agency determines whether and how to proceed with its proposed action in light of

the Services' biological opinion, even though the terms and conditions of incidental take

statements are non-discretionary. Nevertheless, the Services' biological opinion is traditionally

afforded substantial deference by any reviewing court, and action agencies must give great

weight to the Services' biological opinion before deciding on a proposed action. Failure to

explain in the administrative record how the agency addressed the Services' biological opinion

could expose the action agency to a judicial challenge under both the Act and the

Administrative Procedure Act.

No jeopardy and/or no adverse modification finding

The action agency may proceed with the action as proposed, provided no incidental take is

anticipated. If incidental take is anticipated, the agency or the applicant must comply with the

reasonable and prudent measures and implementing terms and conditions in the Services'

incidental take statement to avoid potential liability for any incidental take.

Jeopardy/adverse modification finding

If a jeopardy or adverse modification determination results from the consultation, the action

agency may:

o adopt one of the reasonable and prudent alternatives for eliminating the jeopardy or

adverse modification of critical habitat in the opinion;

o decide not to grant the permit, fund the project, or undertake the action;

o request an exemption from the Endangered Species Committee (see Appendix G);

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 52 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-12

o reinitiate the consultation by proposing modification of the action or offering

reasonable and prudent alternatives not yet considered; or

o choose to take other action if it believes, after a review of the biological opinion and

the best available scientific information, such action satisfies section 7(a)(2).

The action agency must notify the Services of its final decision on any proposed action that

receives a jeopardy or adverse modification biological opinion (50 CFR §402.15(b)).

Incidental take statements

Violation of the section 9 taking prohibition results in liability unless the terms and conditions

of the incidental take statement are followed. The agency must undertake the required actions

to minimize incidental take, or require these actions as conditions of the permit or grant. The

agency has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by the incidental take permit;

otherwise the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse.

(E) Role of the Permit or License Applicant

Identification of an applicant

The Services do not determine formally whether or who is an applicant for a Federal agency

action, although the regulations and their preamble provide guidance. For purposes of this

discussion, the Federal action involves the approval of a permit or license sought by the

applicant, together with the activities resulting from such permission. The action agency

determines applicant status, including requests arising from prospective applicants in early

consultations. The action agency also determines how the applicants are to be involved in the

consultation, consistent with provisions of section 7(a)(3), (b) and (c) of the Act and the

section 7 regulations.

Users of public resources (e.g. timber companies harvesting on National Forests) are not

parties to programmatic section 7 consultations dealing with an agency's overall management

operations, including land management planning and other program level consultations. 

However, users who are party to a discrete action (i.e., where they are already the successful

bidder on a timber sale that becomes the subject of later consultation or reinitiation when a

new species is listed or new critical habitat is designated) may participate as applicants in the

section 7 process.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 53 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-13

If an agency supports an "applicant" who does not meet the criteria described above, the

Services nonetheless should try to work with that party, although the procedural opportunities

afforded to applicants will not apply to that party.

Applicant's role in the consultation process

If the Federal agency identifies an applicant, the Services and the action agency meet their

obligations to that party as outlined in 50 CFR§402 through the following:

o the action agency provides the applicant an opportunity to submit information for

consideration during the consultation;

o the applicant must be informed by the action agency of the estimated length of any

extension of the 180-day timeframe for preparing a biological assessment, along

with a written statement of the reasons for the extension;

o the timeframes for concluding formal consultation cannot be extended beyond 60

days without the applicant's concurrence;

o the applicant is entitled to review draft biological opinions obtained through the

action agency, and to provide comments through the action agency;

o the Services will discuss the basis of their biological determination with the

applicant and seek the applicant's expertise in identifying reasonable and prudent

alternatives to the action if likely jeopardy or adverse modification of critical

habitat is determined; and 

o the Services provide the applicant with a copy of the final biological opinion.

The Services do not work directly with or take comments directly from the applicant without

the knowledge or consent of the action agency [50 CFR 402.14(g)(5)].

(F) Role of the Non-Federal Representative

Non-Federal representatives may be involved in the informal consultation process and may

request and receive species lists, prepare the biological assessment, and provide information

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 54 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-14

for the formal consultation. However, the Services require the action agency to designate

formally the non-Federal representative in writing. Moreover, the action agency must be

informed that the ultimate responsibility for section 7 obligations remains with the action

agency.

2.3 COORDINATION BETWEEN FWS AND NMFS

The NMFS and the FWS are individually responsible for consultation on listed species under

each of their respective jurisdictions. However, the FWS and NMFS also have joint

jurisdiction over some listed species. Consultation on these shared listed species requires a

joint effort between the FWS and the NMFS. Use of this joint handbook will help to ensure

that FWS and NMFS will approach section 7 consultation in a consistent manner. 

Increasingly, consultations on listed species administered by FWS overlap with those

administered by the NMFS and vice versa. In these instances, the FWS should strive to

coordinate informal and formal consultations with their NMFS counterparts and vice versa. 

Also, when formal consultations may affect species under NMFS jurisdiction, the FWS needs

to remind the action agency, through early correspondence and/or as a footnote to the formal

consultation package, of the need to consult with NMFS and vice versa.

Coordination between FWS and NMFS is critical to ensure any reasonable and prudent

alternatives prescribed by both the Services (e.g., the conservation of sea turtles) are

compatible. The terms and conditions of incidental take statements must be compatible so the

action agency can implement both opinions without further consultation.

Currently, NMFS listed species that may require joint coordination include several whales, the

Hawaiian monk seal, several runs of salmon in the Northwest and California, the shortnose

sturgeon, and sea turtles while in the water. Recent joint FWS/NMFS consultations have

included actions on the Gulf sturgeon in the Gulf of Mexico, Corps of Engineers dredging

impacts to sea turtles in Florida, programmatic consultations on salmon and owls in the Pacific

Northwest, and oil exploration in Alaska.

2.4 COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

Consultations with other Federal agencies follow 50 CFR §402 unless counterpart regulations

(explained in 50 CFR §402.04) are approved for that agency. Although no counterpart

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 55 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-15

regulations have been issued to date, field stations may consider entering into optional

procedures that provide better working relationships with other agencies at a local level

consistent with 50 CFR §402. Other agencies may wish to consult on all or a subset of their

activities on a local or regional programmatic basis.

Examples of specific agency programs and their relationship to section 7 follow:

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): All actions funded, permitted, or undertaken by BIA for the

benefit of Indian tribes or other tribal entities will involve BIA when Federal agency decisions

or other actions are required. The affected tribe/entity shall be treated as the designated nonFederal representative or applicant, entitled to full participation in the consultation process,

but does not have standing as a Federal agency for consultation purposes. 

Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA): A January 8, 1993, memorandum (Appendix D, #S1) from the Secretary of the Interior clarified that OHA has no authority to review the merits

of the Services' biological opinions. That review is limited to the Federal courts.

Corps of Engineers (Corps), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC): Ongoing operations, relicensing and reauthorizations for

water projects that predate the Act are subject to consultation if the agency retains any

discretion in continuing project operations. Development of new water or power production

projects funded with Federal monies will require section 7 consultation.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Programs delegated to States for operation are

subject to consultation pursuant to 50 CFR 402 and supplemental guidance provided in

existing MOAs tailored to program-specific needs. The Services are working with EPA to

develop a MOA specific to section 7 consultations for programs which have been delegated to

the States under the Clean Water Act. Before entering into consultation with the EPA, check

on whether the MOA has been signed. Once signed, the MOA will be considered an

addendum to this handbook.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): All of FEMA's actions are subject to the

Act, although the nature of many of their programs may call for greater use of the emergency

consultation process. Improving the Services' working relationships with FEMA counterparts

can help develop appropriate responses to categories of emergencies before a crisis occurs.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Most parties seeking HUD grants have completed

project planning before applying for the grant. Knowing early on about developments being

considered in a species' range can help with project direction. If HUD monies are likely to be

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 56 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-16

sought, the applicant can be encouraged to use the early consultation process. If there is no

Federal nexus, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit may be appropriate.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service): 

implements Federal mandates to maintain and enhance natural resources through local or

regional sponsors. These sponsors may be designated as non-Federal representatives by

written documentation from NRCS.

2.5 COORDINATION WITH STATE AGENCIES

The term State agency means any State agency, department, board, commission, or other

governmental entity that is responsible for the management and conservation of fish, plant, or

wildlife resources within a State. (ESA § 3(17))

The Services' policy regarding the role of State agencies in activities under the Act [59 FR

34274-34275 (July 1, 1994)] (see copy in Appendix A), calls for cooperation with States as

follows:

As part of the consultation program, it is the policy of the Services to:

o inform State agencies of any Federal agency action that is likely to adversely affect listed

or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat, and request relevant

information from them, including the results of any related studies, in analyzing the

effects of the action and cumulative effects on the species and habitat.

o request an information update from State agencies prior to preparing the final biological

opinion to ensure that the findings and recommendations are based on the best scientific

and commercial data available.

o recommend to Federal agencies that they provide State agencies with copies of the final

biological opinion unless the information related to the consultation is protected by

national security classification or is confidential business information. Decisions to

release such classified or confidential business information shall follow the action

agency's procedures. Biological opinions not containing such classified or confidential

business information will be provided to the State agencies by the Services, if not

provided by the action agency, after 10 working days. The exception to this waiting

period allows simultaneous provision of copies when there is a joint Federal-State

consultation action.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 57 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-17

2.6 COORDINATION WITH TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

The unique and distinctive political relationship between the United States and Indian tribes is

defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, and

differentiates tribes from other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the Federal

government. This relationship has given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility, involving

the legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes and the

application of fiduciary standards of due care with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust

resources, and the exercise of tribal rights.

Indian lands are not federal public lands or part of the public domain, and are not subject to

federal public land laws. They were retained by tribes or were set aside for tribal use pursuant

to treaties, statutes, judicial decisions, executive orders or agreements. These lands are

managed by Indian tribes in accordance with tribal goals and objectives, within the framework

of applicable laws.

On June 28, 1994, the FWS issued its Native American policy entitled "The Native American

Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." On March 30, 1995, the Department of

Commerce issued its tribal policy entitled "American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the

Department of Commerce." On June 5, 1997, the Departments of Interior and Commerce

(Departments) signed joint Secretarial Order #3206 entitled "American Indian Tribal Rights,

Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act" as a further 

refinement of these Native American policies to foster partnerships with tribal governments in

activities under the Act.

Under this Secretarial Order, the Departments recognize the importance of tribal selfgovernance and the protocols of a government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. 

Long-standing Congressional and Administrative policies promote tribal self-government, selfsufficiency, and self-determination, recognizing and endorsing the fundamental rights of tribes

to set their own priorities and make decisions affecting their resources and distinctive ways of

life. The Departments recognize and respect, and shall consider, the value that tribal

traditional knowledge provides to tribal and federal land management decision making and

tribal resource management activities.

The Departments recognize that Indian tribes are governmental sovereigns. Inherent in this

sovereign authority is the power to make and enforce laws, administer justice, manage and

control Indian lands, exercise tribal rights and protect tribal trust resources. The Departments

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 58 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-18

shall be sensitive to the fact that Indian cultures, religions, and spirituality often involve

ceremonial and medicinal uses of plants, animals, and specific geographic places.

Because of the unique government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the

United States, the Departments and affected Indian tribes need to establish and maintain

effective working relationships and mutual partnerships to promote the conservation of

sensitive species (including candidate, proposed and listed species) and the health of

ecosystems upon which they depend. Such relationships should focus on cooperative

assistance, consultation, the sharing of information, and the creation of government-togovernment partnerships to promote healthy ecosystems.

In facilitating a government-to-government relationship, the Departments may work with

intertribal organizations, to the extent such organizations are authorized by their member

tribes to carry out resource management responsibilities.

This Secretarial Order clarifies the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus and

offices of the Departments when actions taken under authority of the Act and associated

implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the

exercise of American Indian tribal rights. This Order further acknowledges the trust

responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States toward Indian tribes and tribal

members and its government-to-government relationship in dealing with tribes.

Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner

that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory

missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a

disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the

potential for conflict and confrontation.

Under the Secretarial Order, tribal governments can play a role in the consultation process

when agency actions may affect tribal trust resources or tribal rights. The Services shall

coordinate with affected Indian tribes in order to fulfill the Services' trust responsibilities, shall

encourage meaningful tribal participation in the section 7 consultation process and shall:

o Facilitate the Services' use of the best available scientific and commercial data by

soliciting information, traditional knowledge, and comments from, and utilizing the

expertise of, affected Indian tribes in addition to data provided by the action agency

during the consultation process. The Services shall provide timely notification to

affected tribes as soon as the Services are aware that a proposed federal agency

action subject to formal consultation may affect tribal rights or tribal trust resources.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 59 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-19

o Provide copies of applicable final biological opinions to affected tribes to the

maximum extent permissible by law.

o When the Services enter formal consultation on an action proposed by the Bureau

of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Services shall consider and treat affected tribes as

license or permit applicants entitled to full participation in the consultation process. 

This shall include, but is not limited to, invitation to meetings between the Services

and BIA, opportunities to provide pertinent scientific data and to review data in the

administrative record, and to review biological assessments and draft biological

opinions. In keeping with the trust responsibility, tribal conservation and

management plans for tribal trust resources that govern activities on Indian lands,

including for purposes of this paragraph, tribally-owned fee lands, shall serve as the

basis for developing any reasonable and prudent alternatives, to the extent

practicable.

o When the Services enter into formal consultations with an Interior Department

agency other than the BIA, or an agency of the Department of Commerce, on a

proposed action which may affect tribal rights or tribal trust resources, the Services

shall notify the affected Indian tribe(s) and provide for the participation of the BIA

in the consultation process.

o When the Services enter into formal consultations with agencies not in the

Departments of the Interior or Commerce, on a proposed action which may affect

tribal rights or tribal trust resources, the Services shall notify the affected Indian

tribe(s) and encourage the action agency to invite the affected tribe(s) and the BIA

to participate in the consultation process.

o In developing reasonable and prudent alternatives, the Services shall give full

consideration to all comments and information received from any affected tribe, and

shall strive to ensure that any alternative selected does not discriminate against such

tribe(s). The Services shall make a written determination describing (i) how the

selected alternative is consistent with their trust responsibilities, and (ii) the extent

to which tribal conservation and management plans for affected tribal trust

resources can be incorporated into any such alternative. 

o When FWS or NMFS actions may affect the reserved lands or the exercise of

reserved rights of tribal governments, the Services will cooperate with affected

tribal governments to encourage and facilitate tribal participation in the consultation

process. Where the Services are aware of a proposed Federal agency action that

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 60 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-20

may affect the reserved lands or the exercise of reserved rights under the jurisdiction

of tribal governments, the Services will strongly recommend to the Federal action

agency that they work with and encourage affected tribal governments to participate

in the consultation process.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 61 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-1

CHAPTER 3 - INFORMAL CONSULTATION

3.1 THE INFORMAL CONSULTATION PROCESS

Most consultations are conducted informally with the Federal agency or a designated nonFederal representative. Informal consultations: 

o clarify whether and what listed, proposed, and candidate species or designated or

proposed critical habitats may be in the action area;

o determine what effect the action may have on these species or critical habitats;

o explore ways to modify the action to reduce or remove adverse effects to the

species or critical habitats; 

o determine the need to enter into formal consultation for listed species or designated

critical habitats, or conference for proposed species or proposed critical habitats;

and

o explore the design or modification of an action to benefit the species.

When used in the context of consultation, the term "informal" suggests an unstructured

approach to meeting section 7 requirements. Such consultation includes phone contacts,

meetings, conversations, letters, project modifications and concurrences that occur prior to

(1) initiation of formal consultation or (2) the Services' concurrence that formal consultation is

not necessary. Participation in informal consultation may include (1) the action agency, (2) a

designated non-Federal representative, (3) an applicant or permittee, or (4) consultants

working on behalf of any of the first three. The informal consultation process may uncover

data gaps which may complicate the section 7 analysis. In such situations, additional studies

may be necessary to document the species' status in the action area to improve the data base

upon which a biological assessment or, if formal consultation is warranted, a biological

opinion is developed.

While there is no overall timetable for informal discussions, timeframes are established for

some individual elements of informal consultation (Figure 3-1). The biological assessment,

including the effects of the action, must be submitted within 180 calendar days of receipt of a

species list from the Services. The current accuracy of the species list needs to be verified if it

is more than 90 days old and preparation of the biological assessment has yet to begin [50

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 62 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-2

CFR §402.12(e)]. Dialogue can continue as long as both parties are willing to participate and

are actively working to complete the informal consultation. Although not required by section

7, many agencies request species lists, or concurrence with submitted species lists, for projects

that are not "major construction activities." Although a timeframe for responding to these

requests is not mandated by regulation, the Services will respond within 30 calendar days

when possible. See Exhibit 3-1 for an example of a species list.

Documentation of the steps in the informal consultation process is essential to its continued

utility and success. The administrative file should contain records of phone contacts,

including name of the caller, the purpose of the call as it relates to the proposed action or

action area, and any advice or recommendations provided by the Services' biologist. A

meeting can be easily documented by letter to appropriate parties that summarizes the meeting

results, particularly any Services' concerns and recommendations.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 63 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-3

Figure 3-1. Informal consultation process

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 64 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-4

Exhibit 3-1. Example of a species list

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ecological Services

C/o CCSU, Campus Box 338

6300 Ocean Drive

Corpus Christi, Texas 78412

(date)

Consultation No: x-xx-xx-x-xxx

Dear ____________:

This responds to your letter dated _______, regarding the effects of the proposed replacement

of sections of pipe on species Federally listed, proposed for Federal listing, and candidate species

occurring in Goliad County, Texas. In addition your project was evaluated with respect to

wetlands and other important fish and wildlife habitat.

It is our understanding that the proposed project would involve the replacement of five (5)

sections of 6" pipe totaling 119 feet. Associated construction activities would be within the

existing right-of-way located in the Cabeza Creek Field. This project is intended to maintain

efficient operations of United's pipeline system.

Our data indicates that the following species and critical habitat may occur in the project area.

(1) Listed species

Attwater’s prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) - E 

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)- E

(2) Proposed species

(give common name, scientific name, and status - PE or PT)

(3) Candidate species

(give common name and scientific name of species)

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 65 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-5

(4) Designated critical habitat for

(give common name and scientific name of species)

(5) Proposed critical habitat for

(give common name and scientific name of species)

Our data indicate that Federally listed species, proposed species, candidate species, and

designated and proposed critical habitat are not likely to be impacted by the proposed project

action. With respect to wetlands and other important fish and wildlife habitat, it appears that the

proposed action will not significantly impact these resources. If project plans change or portions

of the proposed project were not evaluated, it is our recommendation that the changes be

submitted for our review. If you require additional information, please contact

____(name)______ of this office at ______(phone)_____.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 66 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-6

3.2 IDENTIFICATION, RESOLUTION, AND CONSERVATION

Except in those cases where the need for formal consultation is clear from the start, the Services

will encourage all action agencies entering into the consultation process to start with informal

consultation rather than formal consultation. This will allow for early consideration of listed

species concerns, similar to the early scoping process of NEPA. Many consultations can and

should be handled informally. This gives the Services an opportunity to be involved early and to

resolve problems as they are identified.

Informal consultation determines the likelihood of adverse effects on a listed species or critical

habitat. Informal consultations (1) identify adverse effects and suggest ways to avoid them, (2)

resolve project conflicts or differences of opinion between the Services and the action agency or

applicant as to the nature and extent of adverse effects, (3) provide the action agency with

opportunities for carrying out conservation activities pursuant to section 7(a)(1), and (4) help

monitor cumulative effects on a species or ecosystem.

Service biologists must be well informed about species' status, distribution, threats, and recovery

objectives to carry out the informal consultation process effectively. All decisions reached during

the consultation process must be based on sound science. The logical place to start data

gathering is the field station's species files. Other reliable sources are State and tribal fish and

wildlife agencies, Federal land management agencies, State Natural Heritage Programs, species

experts, cooperative research units, recovery teams, The Nature Conservancy, and private

consultants. All may provide or verify information, and should be used as needed.

Conflict resolutions during informal consultation may involve changes in construction scheduling,

engineering design, pesticide formulation or application method, location, emission or discharge

levels and many other changes. All possible options to eliminate adverse effects should be

discussed freely with the action agency, and they should be encouraged to recommend their own

options. The Services do not offer "not likely to adversely affect" concurrences unless the

project's dimensions are defined clearly at the informal stage. Finally, informal consultation offers

action agencies an opportunity to address their conservation responsibilities under section 7(a)(1).

Recovery plans often identify tasks benefiting listed species that may be carried out on or near the

project site. Examples include habitat protection, modification or improvement; predator control;

and survey work.

3.3 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 67 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-7

A telephoned or written inquiry about the presence or absence of listed and/or proposed species

in a project area usually initiates informal consultation. Service biologists may respond in several

ways. If species are not likely to be present, the consultation requirement is met, and the Services

may advise the agency, applicant or consultant of this in writing. If historical records or habitat

similarities suggest the species may be in the area, then some survey work may be recommended

to make a more precise determination. If the species is definitely in the project area, but the

Services determine it will not be adversely affected, the Services may notify the agency of that

finding (e.g., bald eagles fly over but do not feed, roost, or nest in the area, and are not expected

to be adversely affected). 

Technical assistance from the Services may take a variety of forms; it includes the species list

provided by the Service, information on listed, proposed, and candidate species, as well as

names of contacts having information on other sensitive species or State listed species. The

Services may alert State or tribal agencies, or other Services offices of the project. See

Exhibit 3-2 for a letter on the need for a survey.

The Services may recommend that the action agency conduct additional studies on species'

distribution in the area affected by the action. Normally, Services biologists only request

additional survey work, but sometimes monitoring impacts of the action on aspects of the

species' life cycle may be agreed upon during informal consultation. Monitoring may be

recommended when incidental take is not anticipated but might possibly occur, thus triggering

the need for formal consultation. In this situation, the action agency should be notified of the

consequences of an unauthorized taking and be encouraged to enter formal consultation if

take is anticipated. The action agency has no legal obligation to conduct or pay for these

studies, but Service biologists should point out the advantages of doing them during informal

consultation, particularly if the data gathered may preclude formal consultation. Also, Service

biologists can remind action agencies of their responsibilities under section 7(a)(1) of the Act

to aid in conservation of listed species.

While candidate species have no legal protection, Service biologists should notify agencies of

candidate species in the action area, and may recommend ways to reduce adverse effects

and/or request studies as appropriate. These may be added as conservation recommendations. 

Legally, the action agency does not have to implement such recommendations. However,

candidate species may later be proposed for listing, making conference necessary in the future

if proposed actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such species. Service

biologists should urge other Federal agencies to address candidate species in their Federal

programs. The Services are eager to work with other Federal agencies to conserve candidate

species. Addressing candidate species at this stage of consultation provides a focus on the

overall health of the local ecosystem and may avert potential future conflicts.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 68 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-8

Only technical assistance can be provided to agencies conducting actions outside the United

States (e.g., in Canada), but knowledge of such actions should be considered in the "status of

the species" analysis if consultations arise on impacts proposed to the species (e.g., whooping

crane) in the U.S.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 69 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-9

Exhibit 3-2. Example of a need for survey

 January 26, 1993

Dear __________ :

This responds to your letter dated December 28, 1992 requesting information on the presence

of Federally listed and proposed endangered or threatened species in relation to the proposed

Portland, Maine to Canada Natural Gas Pipeline for the Portland Natural Gas Transmission

System.

Based on information currently available to us, the Federally listed endangered small whorled

pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is known to occur in several of the towns in southern Maine

through which the proposed transmission lines may pass. The small whorled pogonia occurs

both in fairly young forests and in maturing stands. Although varying in their composition, the

mixed-deciduous or mixed deciduous/coniferous forests in which the small whorled pogonia

grows are generally in second or third-growth successional stages. The ages of the older trees

forming the canopy at some of the sites has been estimated to be about 75 years old in New

Hampshire.

The soil in which the shallowly-rooted small whorled pogonia grows is usually covered with

leaf litter. The substrate in which it is rooted may be a variety of different textures, from

extremely stony glacial till, to stone-free sandy loams, to sterile duff. The common soil factor

at most sites is the highly-acidic, nutrient-poor quality of the soil in which this orchid grows.

The majority of Isotria medeoloides sites generally share several common characteristics. 

These include only sparse to moderate ground cover in the microhabitat of the orchids (except

when among ferns), a relatively open understory canopy, and nearness to logging roads,

streams, or other features that create long persisting breaks in the forest canopy. For

example, in New Hampshire, the small whorled pogonia has been found growing in and

adjacent to recently abandoned, above ground telephone transmission lines.

Inasmuch as distributional information on many rare species is incomplete or imprecise, it is

not currently possible to provide a definitive finding relative to small whorled pogonia in the

permit area. Therefore, in situations such as this, where an endangered species is known to

occur in similar habitats nearby, a qualified botanist should survey the following proposed

alignments prior to construction activities: alignment sections with corresponding numbers 11

- 20 (no Figure identified) and Nos. 37 - 39 (Fig. 35). A survey for the small whorled pogonia

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 70 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-10

should be conducted by a botanist familiar with this species and should occur in July or

August to ensure best survey conditions.

In addition for the potential of small whorled pogonia populations occurring within the project

area, the candidate species, ___(common and scientific name)____ is known to occur at

several locations near Portland. While candidate species are not afforded protection under the

Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages their consideration in

environmental planning. If unnecessary impacts to candidate species can be avoided, the

likelihood that they will require the protection of the Act in the future is reduced. We

recommend that the alignment in the vicinity of Portland and Falmouth he surveyed for the 

____(common name of candidate species)____.

One portion of the proposed alignment near Willoughby, Vermont (Figure 11) passes within

five miles of a nest site of the Federally listed endangered

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). However, based on the proposed project's

distance from the nest (approximately 5 miles), we do not expect any impacts to occur to the

resident peregrine falcons.

No other Federally listed or proposed threatened and endangered species under the

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known to occur in the project area, with

the exception of occasional transient endangered bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or

peregrine falcons.

For further information about or assistance with surveys for the small whorled pogonia or the

___(common name of candidate species)___, we suggest that you contact the Maine Natural

Heritage Program, State House Station 130, Augusta, Maine 04333, 207-289-6800.

Please notify this office with the results of any surveys for the small whorled pogonia or the

___(common name of candidate species)___, so that we may determine whether there may be

any impacts to these species. A list of Federally designated endangered and threatened species

in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont is included for your information. Thank you for your

cooperation and please contact _____(name)____ of this office at ____(phone)____ for

further coordination regarding this project.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 71 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-11

3.4 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

"(c)(1) To facilitate compliance with the requirements of subsection (a)(2) each

Federal agency shall . . . request of the Secretary information whether any species

which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed

action. If the Secretary advises, based on the best scientific and commercial data

available, that such species may be present, such agency shall conduct a biological

assessment for the purpose of identifying any endangered species or threatened

species which is likely to be affected by such action. Such assessment shall be

completed within 180 days after the date on which initiated (or within such other

period as is mutually agreed by the Secretary and such agency, except that if a permit

or license applicant is involved, the 180-day period may not be extended unless such

agency provides the applicant, before the close of such period, with a written

statement setting forth the estimated length of the proposed extension and the reasons

therefor) and before any contract for construction is entered into and before

construction is begun with respect to such action. Such assessment may be

undertaken as part of a Federal agency's compliance with the requirements of section

102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

(2) Any person who may wish to apply for an exemption under subsection (g) of the

section for that action may conduct a biological assessment to identify any

endangered species or threatened species which is likely to be affected by such action. 

Any such biological assessment must, however, be conducted in cooperation with the

Secretary and under the supervision of the appropriate Federal agency."

 Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act

By regulation, a biological assessment is prepared for "major construction activities"

considered to be Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment

as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.). A major construction activity is a construction project or other undertaking having

similar physical impacts, which qualify under NEPA as a major federal action. Major

construction activities include dams, buildings, pipelines, roads, water resource developments,

channel improvements, and other such projects that modify the physical environment and that

constitute major Federal actions. As a rule of thumb, if an Environmental Impact Statement is

required for the proposed action and construction-type impacts are involved, it is considered a

major construction activity.

A biological assessment is required if listed species or critical habitat may be present in the

action area. It is optional if only proposed species or proposed critical habitat is involved. 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 72 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-11

However, if both proposed and listed species are present, a biological assessment is required

and must address both proposed and listed species. An assessment also may be recommended

for other activities to ensure the agency's early involvement and increase the chances for

resolution during informal consultation.

If a biological assessment is required, formal consultation cannot be initiated until the

biological assessment is completed. Some agencies submit an assessment early, benefitting

from the informal consultation process; some need to be advised to do so. When Service

biologists advise an action agency of the need for a biological assessment, the letter should

indicate the importance of completing the assessment before letting contracts or beginning

construction.

The Federal action agency may designate the applicant or a non-Federal representative (often

a consultant) to prepare the biological assessment, although the action agency takes

responsibility for the content of the assessment and for the findings of effect. The contents of

the assessment are discretionary, but generally include results of on-site inspections

determining the presence of listed or proposed species, and an analysis of the likely effects of

the action on the species or habitat based on biological studies, review of the literature, and

the views of species experts. The assessment also describes any known unrelated future nonFederal activities ("cumulative effects") reasonably certain to occur within the action area that

are likely to affect the species. Sometimes information in other environmental analysis

documents can substitute or be easily modified to produce the assessment.

The biological assessment should address all listed and proposed species found in the action

area, not just those listed and proposed species that are likely to be affected. One of the

purposes of the biological assessment is to help make the determination of whether the

proposed action is "likely to adversely affect" listed species and critical habitat. To make such

a determination, all species must be addressed. Such an assessment may help determine the

need for conference as well as formal consultation. A biological assessment may be prepared

(50 CFR §402.12(b)(1)) if the agency or the applicant may wish later to seek a permanent

exemption from the Endangered Species Committee.

The agency is not required to prepare a biological assessment for actions that are not major

construction activities, but, if a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be affected, the

agency must provide the Services with an account of the basis for evaluating the likely effects

of the action. The Services use this documentation along with any other available information

to decide if concurrence with the agency's determination is warranted.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 73 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-12

Sometimes, biological assessments are confused with environmental assessments. The

contents of biological assessments prepared pursuant to the Act are largely at the discretion of

the action agency although the regulations provide recommended contents (50 CFR

§402.12(f)). Biological assessments are not required to analyze alternatives to proposed

actions. Environmental assessments are prepared pursuant to the National Environmental

Policy Act.

3.5 CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE LETTERS

Following review of the biological assessment or other pertinent information, another informal

effort may be appropriate to try to eliminate any residual adverse effects. If that effort results

in elimination of potential impacts, the Services will concur in writing that the action, as

revised and newly described, is not likely to adversely affect listed species or designated

critical habitat. Since concurrence depends upon implementation of the modifications, the

concurrence letter must clearly state any modifications agreed to during informal consultation. 

If agreement cannot be reached, the agency is advised to initiate formal consultation.

Although not required, an action agency may request written concurrence from the Services

that the proposed action will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat. This

concurrence is useful for the administrative record. When the biological assessment or other

information indicates that the action has no likelihood of adverse effect (including evaluation

of effects that may be beneficial, insignificant, or discountable), the Services provide a letter of

concurrence, which completes informal consultation. The analysis, based on review of all

potential effects, direct and indirect, is documented in the concurrence letter. If the nature of

the effects cannot be determined, benefit of the doubt is given to the species. Do not concur

in this instance. After evaluating the potential for effect, one of the following determinations

is made:

Listed species/designated critical habitat

o No effect - the appropriate conclusion when the action agency determines its

proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat (see Exhibit 3-3).

o Is not likely to adversely affect - the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed

species are expected to be discountable, or insignificant, or completely beneficial. 

Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects

to the species. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should

never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely

unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 74 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-13

meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect

discountable effects to occur (see Exhibits 3-4 and 3-5).

o Nonconcurrence - if the Services do not agree with the action agency's

determination of effects or if there is not enough information to adequately

determine the nature of the effects, a letter of nonconcurrence is provided to the

action agency (see Exhibit 3-6).

o Is likely to adversely affect - the appropriate conclusion if any adverse effect to

listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its

interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not: discountable,

insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of “is not likely to adversely affect”). In

the event the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species,

but also is likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proposed action "is likely to

adversely affect" the listed species. An "is likely to adversely affect" determination

requires formal section 7 consultation.

Proposed species/proposed critical habitat

A fourth finding is possible for proposed species or proposed critical habitat:

o Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical

habitat - the appropriate conclusion when the action agency or the Services identify

situations in which the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the proposed species or adversely modify the proposed critical habitat. 

If this conclusion is reached, conference is required.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 75 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-14

Exhibit 3-3. Example of a no effect response

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

New England Field Offices

400 Ralph Pill Marketplace

22 Bridge Street, Unit #1

Concord, New Hampshire 03301-4901

RE: Nationwide Wetlands Permit

January 20, 1993

Drakes Island, Wells, Maine

Dear __________ :

We have reviewed your request for information about endangered and threatened species and

their habitats for the above referenced project. The Federally listed threatened piping plover

(Charadrius melodus) is known to occur on Laudholm Beach, near the proposed project. 

However, based on the project description and location, the Fish and Wildlife Service concurs

with your determination that no impacts to Federally listed species will occur as a result of the

proposed action. Should project plans change, or if additional information on the distribution

of listed or proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered.

While it is not required for your Federal permit, we suggest that you contact the Maine

Natural Heritage Program, State House Station 130, Augusta, Maine 04333, 207-289-6800

for information on state listed species that may be present.

A list of Federally designated endangered and threatened species in Maine is enclosed for your

information. If you have further questions, please contact _____(name)____ of this office at

____(phone)____.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 76 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-15

Exhibit 3-4. Example of a concurrence letter

Re: Blanket clearance for minor construction projects

Dear __________ :

This responds to your request of November 18, 1992, for our concurrence with your

approach to handling endangered species review of minor construction projects falling into the

following categories specified in your letter:

1. Construction, abandonment, or relocation of points of delivery (PODs). We understand

to establish a new POD, an existing pipeline is tapped at a point along a previously

disturbed and maintained Right-Of-Way (ROW), and no more than 20 feet of small

diameter pipe is installed. Limited aboveground facilities such as valves, separators,

meters and small shelters may also be installed. To relocate or abandon a POD, an

existing pipeline is cut and capped adjacent to the existing pipeline as previously

described at a different location.

2. Construction and/or maintenance projects within existing, previously disturbed, and

generally fenced compressor and measuring and regulatory (M&R) stations.

3. Construction and/or maintenance projects along existing, previously disturbed and

maintained ROW. We understand from your letter that these minor projects are less than

100 feet in length and include projects for erosion and sedimentation control, cathodic

protection installations and repairs to or replacement of facilities.

A Biological Assessment is required for "major construction activities" if listed species "may

be present" in the action area - regardless of the likelihood or significance of the effects. 

However, since the above projects are not "major construction activities" and no listed species

"may be present" in the action area, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7

Consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is required with the Fish and

Wildlife Service for these particular activities. We concur that the types of activities described

above will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species. Should additional

information on listed or proposed species become available, this determination may be

reconsidered.

The above comments are provided in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat.

884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Our comments regarding compliance with the Fish

and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and the

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 77 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-16

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (40 Stat. 755, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) were provided

in our letter of February 11, 1992 Those comments remain valid.

We appreciate your conscientious efforts to comply with Federal requirements. If you have

any questions regarding this letter, please contact ____(name)____ of this office at 

____(phone)____.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 78 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-17

Exhibit 3-5. Example of a concurrence letter on a beneficial effect

Dear __________ :

This letter responds to your Biological Assessment [or other title], received on [date], and

your request for concurrence that all effects of the proposed [name and location of the action]

on [name of listed species] will be beneficial.

The Fish and Wildlife Service [or National Marine Fisheries Service] (Service) has reviewed

the submitted project description and evaluation of project effects, and concurs with your

determination that all project effects on [name of listed species] will be beneficial.

[choose one of the following closings]

This concludes section 7 consultation on [name of action]. If you have any questions or

concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in general, please feel free to

contact me or [name of staff member] at [number].

[OR]

No further consultation on the effects of [project name] on [name of listed species] is

required. However, since your BA [other title] also identified potential adverse effects from

the project on [name of listed species], the formal consultation process will continue for those

species that may be adversely affected. Section 7 allows the Service up to 90 calendar days to

conclude formal consultation with your agency and an additional 45 calendar days to prepare

our biological opinion (unless we mutually agree to an extension). Therefore, we expect to

provide you with our biological opinion no later than [date = 135 calendar days after receipt

of a complete initiation package].

As a reminder, the Endangered Species Act requires that after initiation of formal

consultation, the Federal action agency may not make any irreversible or irretrievable

commitment of resources that limits future options. This practice insures agency actions do

not preclude the formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives that

avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or destroying

or modifying their critical habitats.

If you have any questions or concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in

general, please feel free to contact ____(name)___ of this office at ____(phone)____.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 79 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-18

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 80 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-19

Exhibit 3-6. Example of a nonconcurrence letter

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Chesapeake Bay Field Office

1825 Virginia Street

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

January 11, 1993

Re: Endangered Species Act concerns relative to CENAB-OP-RP (CHESAPEAKE BEACH,

TOWN OF)90-04126-1

Dear ________ :

We are writing to express our concerns regarding impacts of the referenced project on the

Federally threatened Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela puritana). Our comments are provided in

accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (87 stat. 884 as amended; 16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The project involves construction of a stone revetment and wooden walkway along the

Chesapeake Bay at the Town of Chesapeake Beach a short distance north of a bayside cliff

that supports a Puritan tiger beetle population. This population represents the northern limit of

this beetle on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. In 1991, The Corps initiated informal

consultation with the Service to determine whether the revetment/walkway project, due to its

potential for increasing public access to tiger beetle habitat, might adversely affect the Puritan

tiger beetle. As a result of the informal consultation process, it was agreed that the Town

would construct and maintain a chain link fence at the northernmost limit of the cliffs

supporting this threatened species. The fence was to be tied in to the cliff face and to extend

30 feet channelward of mean high water. The Service concurred that such a fence would

decrease public access to the tiger beetle cliffs sufficiently to compensate for the increase in

human use of the beach area, thus resulting in a net “no effect” to the beetles. The permit,

issued May 14, 1991, was conditioned upon the construction and maintenance of this

structure.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 81 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-20

On December 15, 1992, we received information from your office indicating that the applicant

had requested permission to re-locate the fence some 400 feet to the south of the originally

proposed location. On January 7, 1993, the project location was inspected by

_______(name)______ , endangered species biologist from our office, ________(name)___ 

of your staff, and _______(name)______ of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program. The

fence had been constructed at the revised location, leaving a 400 foot section of cliff that is

potential Puritan tiger beetle habitat on the public access side of the fence. Due to this change

in the project, we can no longer concur with the "no effect" determination. In order to ensure

compliance with the Endangered Species Act, we suggest one of the following courses of

action be taken:

(a) The applicant should move the fence to the location specified in the existing permit. 

Compliance with this original permit condition would satisfy the previously established

criterion for "no effect" and would conclude the consultation process for this project.

(b) Alternatively, the Corps should re-examine the project in its present form to determine

whether it may affect any endangered or threatened species. If the possibility of an effect

cannot be eliminated, the Corps is required to initiate formal consultation with the Service.

If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact ____(name)____ of this office

at ____(phone)____. Thank you for your cooperation in the effort to protect endangered and

threatened species.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 82 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-1

 CHAPTER 4 - FORMAL CONSULTATION

"Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the

Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such

agency...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species

or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of

such species which is determined...to be critical.... In fulfilling the requirements of

this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data

available."

 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act

4.1 THE FORMAL CONSULTATION PROCESS

Formal consultations determine whether a proposed agency action(s) is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a listed species (jeopardy) or destroy or adversely modify critical

habitat (adverse modification) (Figure 4-1). They also determine the amount or extent of

anticipated incidental take in an incidental take statement. Formal consultations perform

several other functions: they (1) identify the nature and extent of the effects of Federal

(agency) actions on listed species and critical habitat; (2) identify reasonable and prudent

alternatives, if any, when an action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification;

(3) provide an exception for specified levels of "incidental take" otherwise prohibited under

section 9 of the Act; (4) provide mandatory reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the

impacts of incidental take to listed species; (5) identify ways the action agencies can help

conserve listed species or critical habitat when they undertake an action; and (6) provide an

administrative record of effects on species that can help establish the species' environmental

baseline in future biological opinions.

If an action agency determines a proposed action "may affect" listed species or designated

critical habitat, formal consultation is required. (For procedures to be taken when the action

agency determines that a proposed action "may jeopardize the continued existence" of a

proposed species or "may adversely modify" proposed critical habitat see Chapter 6,

Conference). No formal consultation is required if the action agency finds, with the Services

written concurrence that the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect"

listed species or critical habitat (see Chapter 3, Informal Consultation). This finding can be

made only if ALL of the reasonably expected effects of the proposed action will be beneficial,

insignificant, or discountable. The action agency must request concurrence, in writing, from

the Service for this finding. When action agencies request formal consultation on actions not

likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat, the Services should

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 83 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-2

explain that informal consultation/concurrence letters are adequate to complete section 7

compliance, but that they will enter into formal consultation if the action agency desires.

Although the formal consultation process must result in a biological opinion reaching either a

jeopardy or no jeopardy to listed species (or adverse or no adverse modification of critical

habitat) finding, the process is flexible and can be adapted at any point to respond to project

modifications agreed to by the action agency or the applicant. Moreover, in locations where

numerous actions impact a species, changes in the baseline due to successive effects can be

addressed on a continuing basis using biological opinions. Such a series of biological opinions

can be used like building blocks to first establish a concern, then warn of potential impacts,

and finally result in a jeopardy call. Successive biological opinions can be used to monitor

trends in the species' baseline, making predictions of the impacts of future actions more

reliable. Extrapolation of a diminishing baseline can help show where future jeopardy

thresholds may be reached.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 84 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-3

Figure 4-1. Formal consultation process.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 85 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-4

4.2 INITIATING FORMAL CONSULTATION 

Action agencies initiate formal consultation through a written request to the Services. For a

major construction activity, the action agency is required to submit a biological assessment if

listed species or designated critical habitat may be present in the action area. This biological

assessment, including a description of the effects of the action, must be submitted within 180

days of receipt of a species list from the Services. The accuracy of the species list needs to be

verified if it is more than 90 days old and work on preparing the assessment has not begun. 

Formal consultation is necessary even when the action is not a major construction activity if a

"may affect" situation exists. Although there is no specific timeframe within which the action

agency must submit an initiation package, agencies must review their actions "at the earliest

possible time" to determine whether formal consultation is required. If a "may affect"

situation exists, formal consultation must be initiated promptly. To comply with the section 7

regulations (50 CFR §402.14(c)), the initiation package is submitted with the request for

formal consultation and must include all of the following:

o a description of the action being considered;

o a description of the specific area that may be affected by the action;

o a description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be affected by the

action;

o a description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or

critical habitat, and an analysis of any cumulative effects;

o relevant reports, including any environmental impact statements, environmental

assessments, biological assessment or other analyses prepared on the proposal; and

o any other relevant studies or other information available on the action, the affected

listed species, or critical habitat.

The action agency can initiate formal consultation on a number of similar actions within the

same geographic area (see section 5.3, Regional or Ecosystem Consultations) or a portion of

a comprehensive plan of action (see section 5.5, Incremental Step Consultations), as long as

the effects of the entire action are considered. The information provided by an action agency

must include the best scientific and commercial data available.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 86 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-5

4.3 EVALUATING INITIATION PACKAGES

An action agency's package initiating consultation needs to be reviewed promptly by the

Services to determine if: (1) all of the information required by the regulations has been

provided; and (2) whether the information includes the best scientific and commercial data

available. The "other relevant information" requirement gives the Services an opportunity to

determine what project-specific information is needed to develop the biological opinion. The

action agency is obligated to submit the best data available or "which can be obtained during

the consultation ...." (50 CFR §402.14(d)). Although not required by 50 CFR §402.14, a

topographic map showing the affected area is a useful addition to the initiation package.

4.4 FORMAL CONSULTATION PROCEDURES

(A) Timeframes for Formal Consultation

"(1)(A) Consultation under subsection (a)(2) with respect to any agency action shall

be concluded within the 90-day period beginning on the date on which initiated or,

subject to subparagraph (B), within such other period of time as is mutually

agreeable to the Secretary and the Federal agency;

(B) in the case of an agency action involving a permit or license applicant, the

Secretary and the Federal agency may not mutually agree to conclude consultation

within a period exceeding 90 days unless the Secretary, before the close of the 90th

day referred to in subparagraph (A) -

(i) if the consultation period proposed to be agreed to will end before the 150th

day after the date on which consultation was initiated, submits to the applicant a

written statement setting forth -

(I) the reasons why a longer period is required;

(II) the information that is required to complete the consultation; and

(III) the estimated date on which consultation will be completed; or

(ii) if the consultation period proposed to be agreed to will end 150 or more days

after the date on which consultation was initiated, obtains the consent of the

applicant to the extension."

 Section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act

The Act and the section 7 regulations require that formal consultation be concluded within 90

calendar days (all further references to days in this Handbook mean calendar days) of

initiation, and the regulations require that the biological opinion be delivered to the action

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 87 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-6

agency within 45 days after the conclusion of formal consultation. The Services strive to issue

all biological opinions within the 90-day period; however, the Services may use the additional

45 days when circumstances warrant.

Formal consultation is "initiated" on the date the request is received, if the action agency

provides all the relevant data required by 50 CFR §402.14(c). If all required data are not

initially submitted, then formal consultation is initiated on the date on which all required

information has been received. Within 30 working days of receipt of an initiation package, the

Services should provide written acknowledgment of the consultation request, advise the

action agency of any data deficiencies, and request either the missing data or a written

statement that the data are not available. Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 are examples of letters for

situations with and without all required data. This acknowledgement process is optional, but

it is highly recommended that either a letter or phone conversation record be placed in the

administrative record to document the actual initiation date, particularly if the need to acquire

additional data extends the consultation time frame beyond 90 days from the initial receipt of a

consultation request.

During the initial 90-day formal consultation period, the Services should meet or communicate

with the action agency and an applicant, if any, to gather any additional information necessary

to conduct the consultation. The 90-day period should be used to:

o assess the status of the species and/or critical habitat involved;

o verify the scope of the proposed action, which includes identifying the area likely to

be affected directly and indirectly by the proposed action, and cumulative effects;

o identify adverse effects likely to result in jeopardy to the species and/or adverse

modification of critical habitat;

o develop reasonable and prudent alternatives to an action likely to result in jeopardy

or adverse modification;

o identify adverse effects not likely to jeopardize listed species, but which constitute

"take" pursuant to section 9 of the Act;

o develop reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions for the

incidental take statement as appropriate; and

o identify conservation recommendations, as appropriate.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 88 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-7

These actions should be undertaken cooperatively with the action agency and any applicant,

thus allowing the Services to develop a better understanding of direct and indirect effects of a

proposed action and any cumulative effects in the action area. Action agencies also have the

project expertise necessary to help identify reasonable and prudent alternatives, and

reasonable and prudent measures. Other interested parties (including the applicant, and

affected State and tribal governments) should also be involved in these discussions. However,

before contacting other interested parties, contact the action agency to assess the level of

direct involvement they will allow other interested parties to assume. These cooperative

efforts should be documented for the administrative record.

The Services ensure the biological opinion, including an incidental take statement, is prepared

and delivered within 135 days of initiation of formal consultation. The consultation timeframe

cannot be "suspended." If the Services need more time to analyze the data or prepare the final

opinion, or the action agency needs time to provide data or review a draft opinion, an

extension may be requested by either party. Both the Services and the action agency must

agree to the extension. Extensions should not be indefinite, and should specify a schedule for

completing the consultation. If an applicant is involved in the project, extension must follow

the procedures outlined by section 7(b)(1)(B) of the Act (Exhibit 4-3). In accordance with 50

CFR §402.14(e), a consultation involving an applicant cannot be extended for more than 60

days without the consent of the applicant.

No final biological opinion will be issued before the 135th day if the action agency is still

reviewing the draft. Once the Services receive comments on the draft, the biological opinion

is finalized and delivered to the action agency and applicant, if any. Do not release or

distribute the draft biological opinion. If comments on the draft opinion result in major

changes or clarifications, the Services can seek an extension. When the Services have not

received the action agency's comments by the 125th day, the Services should check with the

action agency (by telephone or in writing) to negotiate an extension. If the Services receive

the comments of the action agency less than 10 calendar days before the end of the established

deadline of 135 days or as otherwise established by an agreed upon extension, then the

Services are automatically entitled to a 10 calendar day extension of that deadline to deliver

the opinion (50 CFR §402.14 (g)(5)).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 89 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-8

Exhibit 4-1. Example of a letter sent to inform action agencies the Services have

received a complete initiation package and will begin formal consultation on a proposed

action.

(date)

Dear _________ :

This letter acknowledges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's [or National Marine Fisheries

Service's] (Service) [date of receipt of letter initiating consultation] receipt of your [date of

agency's initiating letter] letter requesting initiation of formal section 7 consultation under the

Endangered Species Act. The consultation concerns the possible effects of your proposed

[name and location of the action] on [name of listed species and/or critical habitats affected].

All information required of you to initiate consultation was either included with your letter or

is otherwise accessible for our consideration and reference. We have assigned log number

[log number] to this consultation. Please refer to that number in future correspondence on

this consultation.

Section 7 allows the Service up to 90 calendar days to conclude formal consultation with your

agency and an additional 45 calendar days to prepare our biological opinion (unless we

mutually agree to an extension). Therefore, we expect to provide you with our biological

opinion no later than [date = 135 calendar days after receipt of initiation request].

As a reminder, the Endangered Species Act requires that after initiation of formal

consultation, the Federal action agency may not make any irreversible or irretrievable

commitment of resources that limits future options. This practice insures agency actions do

not preclude the formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives that

avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or destroying

or modifying their critical habitats.

If you have any questions or concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in

general, please feel free to contact me or _____(name)_____ of this office at

_____(phone)___.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 90 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-9

Exhibit 4-2. Example of a letter sent when an incomplete formal consultation request

has been received.

(date)

Dear __________ :

This letter acknowledges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's [or National Marine Fisheries

Service's] (Service) [date of receipt of letter initiating consultation] receipt of your [date of

agency's initiating letter] letter requesting initiation of formal section 7 consultation under the

Endangered Species Act. The consultation concerns the possible effects of your proposed

[name and location of the action] on [name of listed species and/or critical habitats affected].

The Service has not received all of the information necessary to initiate formal consultation on

[name of the project] as outlined in the regulations governing interagency consultations (50

CFR §402.14). To complete the initiation package, we will require the following information:

1. [Outline the additional information needs. Follow the general sequence and use language in

50 CFR §402.14(c) to identify each piece of missing information.]

2. etc.

The formal consultation process for the project will not begin until we receive all of the

information, or a statement explaining why that information cannot be made available. We

will notify you when we receive this additional information; our notification letter will also

outline the dates within which formal consultation should be complete and the biological

opinion delivered on the proposed action.

If you have any questions or concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in

general, please feel free to call me at ______(phone)_______.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 91 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-10

Exhibit 4-3. Example of a request for extension of time.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

3100 University Blvd. South

Suite 120

Jacksonville, Florida 32216

October 30, 1992

FWS Log No: 4-1-92441C

Application No: 199201162(LP-CRFO)

Dated: August 6, 1992

Applicant:

County: Citrus

Dear __________ :

On August 4, 1992, the Fish and Wildlife Service entered into formal Section 7 consultation

on the above referenced public notice. The 90-day consultation period expires November 4,

1992. Because of the difficulties we have encountered in acquiring additional information

from the applicant, we request a 60-day extension of the consultation period in accordance

with 50 CFR §402.14(e). The Biological Opinion will be issued before January 3, 1993.

We have been awaiting necessary information (i.e. plat maps) showing the amount of shoreline

owned or controlled by the applicant and information on the number and sizes of existing

docks. We requested shoreline information from them in writing on August 13, 1992, and on

September 1, 1992, we requested maps showing both shoreline and dock information. We

asked for this information again in a telephone conversation with their agent on October 14,

1992. Maps have still not been provided, however, the applicant's wife provided us with a

verbal description of the map and the existing docks in a telephone conversation on October

29, 1992. Additional time is needed to review this information and prepare the biological

opinion.

By copy of this letter, we are notifying the applicant of our request of an extension. We look

forward to your response. If you have any questions or concerns about this consultation or

the consultation process in general, please feel free to call me at ____(phone)____.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 92 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-11

Sincerely,

Field Supervisor

(B) Coordination with other environmental reviews

Formal consultation and the Services' preparation of a biological opinion often involve

coordination with the preparation of documents mandated by other environmental statutes and

regulations, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although other environmental reviews may be processed

concurrently with a section 7 consultation package, they should be separate entities. The

contents of the biological opinion and incidental take statement, including the discussion of

effects to listed or proposed species and/or critical habitats, and appropriate measures to avoid

or minimize those effects, may be addressed in the Service's comments and recommendations

under the FWCA, section 404(m) of the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and other authorities. The

section 7 consultation package may be prepared as a stand-alone document under separate

signature, or one cover transmittal may be used as long as the consultation package is

identified as a separate entity.

The Services should assist the action agency or applicant in integrating the formal consultation

process into their overall environmental compliance. A major concern of action agencies is

often the timing of the consultation process in relation to their other environmental reviews. 

For example, since the time required to conduct formal section 7 consultation may be longer

than the time required to complete preparation of NEPA compliance documents, the action

agency should be encouraged to initiate informal consultation prior to NEPA public scoping. 

Biological assessments may be completed prior to the release of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) and formal consultation, if required, should be initiated prior to or

at the time of release of the DEIS. Early inclusion of section 7 in the NEPA process would

allow action agencies to share project information earlier and would improve interagency

coordination and efficiency. At the time the Final EIS is issued, section 7 consultation should

be completed. The Record of Decision should address the results of section 7 consultation.

4.5 COMPONENTS OF A FORMAL CONSULTATION

The Services' formal consultation package includes at a minimum a biological opinion and an

incidental take statement. The package also may include a conference opinion or notice of a

need to confer if proposed species or proposed critical habitats are involved. Conservation

recommendations for agency implementation of section 7(a)(1) responsibilities under the Act

may be included if relevant to the action under consultation (Figure 4-2).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 93 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-12

Sample language for various types of formal consultation packages can be found in Appendix

B.

Following the address and salutation, the biological opinion begins with a standardized

introduction and a history of the consultation.

Introductory Paragraph:

This document transmits the (Fish and Wildlife Service's/National Marine

Fisheries Service's) (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the

proposed (name or designation for the action) located in (County, State, and

Marine Area as appropriate), and its effects on (species) in accordance with section

7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.). Your (date) request for formal consultation was received on (date).

 

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the (date) biological

assessment (or other title), the (date) draft environmental assessment (or

environmental impact statement), the (date) project proposal, telephone

conversations of (dates) with (names), field investigations, and other sources of

information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at

(this office/elsewhere).

Consultation history

The history of the consultation request includes any informal consultation, prior formal

consultations on the action, documentation of the date consultation was initiated, a

chronology of subsequent requests for additional data, extensions, and other applicable past or

current actions. Conclusions reached in earlier informal and formal consultations on the

proposed action also may be relevant. If so, such conclusions should be documented in the

biological opinion.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 94 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-13

Figure 4-2. Outline of a formal consultation package.

[Handbook discussion in brackets]

Address

Salutation

Introductory paragraph [page 4-12]

Consultation history [page 4-12]

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

I. Description of proposed action [page 4-15]

II. Status of the species/critical habitat [page 4-19]

A. Species/critical habitat description

B. Life history

C. Population dynamics

D. Status and distribution

E. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected

III. Environmental baseline [page 4-22]

A. Status of the species within the action area

B. Factors affecting species environment within the action area

IV. Effects of the action [page 4-23]

A. Factors to be considered

B. Analyses for effects of the action

C. Species' response to a proposed action

V. Cumulative effects [page 4-30]

VI. Conclusion [page 4-31]

VIII.Reasonable and prudent alternatives (as appropriate) [page 4-41]

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT [page 4-43]

Introductory paragraph [page 4-46]

Amount or extent of take anticipated [page 4-47]

Effect of the take [page 4-49]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 95 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-14

Reasonable and prudent measures (as appropriate) [page 4-50]

Terms and conditions [page 4-51]

Coordination of incidental take statements with other laws, regulations, and policies [page 4-

53]

CONFERENCE REPORT/CONFERENCE NOTICE (as appropriate) [page 4-58]

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS (as appropriate) [page 4-59]

REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT [page 4-60]

LITERATURE CITED [page 4-60]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 96 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-15

(A) Biological opinion

"... the Secretary shall provide to the Federal agency and the applicant, if any, a

written statement setting forth the Secretary's opinion, and a summary of the

information on which the opinion is based, detailing how the agency action affects

the species or its critical habitat. If jeopardy or adverse modification is found, the

Secretary shall suggest those reasonable and prudent alternatives which he believes

would not violate subsection (a)(2) and can be taken by the Federal agency or

applicant in implementing the agency action.

 Section 7(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act

A formal biological opinion consists of a description of the proposed action, status of the

species/critical habitat, the environmental baseline, effects of the action, cumulative effects,

the Services' conclusion of jeopardy/no jeopardy and/or adverse modification/no adverse

modification, and reasonable and prudent alternatives, as appropriate.

Description of the proposed action

Provide descriptions of the proposed action and the action area (area including all direct and

indirect effects). The description of the proposed action does not have to be comprehensive if

details can be referenced from NEPA documents or other descriptions provided. However,

some small actions may not have complete or formal descriptions of the proposed action, or

the project's components may be scattered throughout a biological evaluation (or similar

document), draft NEPA documents, draft plans for different portions of the action,

miscellaneous policy and guidance documents, letters, telephone records, meeting notes, and

other documents. In such cases, a comprehensive project description in the biological opinion

is vital to determining the scope of the proposed action. The draft project description may be

sent to the action agency for review to eliminate any inaccuracies regarding the scope of the

action. This section should summarize enough information for the reader to understand and

evaluate the action under consideration in the biological opinion.

If the Services determine that the action area differs from that described by the agency or

applicant, the Services should discuss their rationale for the change with the agency or

applicant. Occasionally, an action agency or an applicant disagrees with the Services'

delineation of the action area. This generally occurs when impacts to the species/habitat result

from indirect or interrelated/interdependent effects. Reaching agreement on the description of

the action area is desirable, but ultimately the Services are responsible for this biological

determination (Figures 4-3, 4-4 and 4-5). Subsequent analyses of the environmental baseline,

effects of the action, and levels of incidental take are based upon the action area as determined

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 97 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-16

by the Services. If appropriate, including a transition sentence clarifies why the action area

was described in a manner differing from that provided by the action agency: "The Services

have described the action area to include.... for reasons that will be explained and discussed in

the 'Effects of the proposed action' section of this consultation." Maps and other graphics also

may be appropriate.

Figure 4-3. Example of an action area within the species’ range.

Figure 4-4. Example of an action area that encompasses the species' range.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 98 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-17

Figure 4-5. Example of an action area involving an effect not at the project site.

A dam on the Platte River

in Colorado (project site)

also may affect the water 

regime for whooping crane 

critical habitat (action 

area) 150 miles downstream 

in Nebraska.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 99 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-18

Description of the proposed action (cont'd)

Determining the action area relates only to the action proposed by the action agency. Even if

the applicant has an alternative not requiring Federal permits or funding, this does not enter

into the Services' analyses. Such alternatives can be discussed in the reasonable and prudent

alternatives or conservation recommendations if the alternative is within the agency's

jurisdiction. The action area should be determined based on consideration of all direct and

indirect effects of the proposed agency action [50 CFR 402.02 and 402.14(h)(2)]. For

example (Figure 4-6), if the proposed action is a wetland fill (requiring a federal permit) to

accommodate access to a proposed development (the actual area of impact to the species),

then the development is included in the action area. Whether or not the applicant can build a

road that does not impact the wetland, the analysis of effects of the action still encompasses

the proposed development. If the applicant is seriously considering the alternative with no

Federal nexus, the applicant should be advised of the need for acquiring a section 10(a)(1)(B)

permit before proceeding with development for actions that will result in a taking.

Figure 4-6. Determining the action area.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 100 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-19

Describing the proposed action also includes any conservation measures proposed as part of

the action. When used in the context of the Act, "conservation measures" represent actions

pledged in the project description that the action agency or the applicant will implement to

further the recovery of the species under review. Such measures may be tasks recommended

in the species' recovery plan, should be closely related to the action, and should be achievable

within the authority of the action agency or applicant. For example, degraded habitat acquired

by the applicant adjacent to the area to be developed may be improved as a conservation

measure prior to project completion so that individuals depending on the habitat to be

destroyed by development can be relocated or allowed to relocate on the improved site.

In this example, the activity carries out a recognized conservation need for the species. The

beneficial effects of the conservation measure are taken into consideration for both jeopardy

and incidental take analyses. However, remember that the objective of the incidental take

analysis under section 7 is minimization, not mitigation. If the conservation measure only

protects off-site habitat and does not minimize impacts to affected individuals in the action

area, the beneficial effects of the conservation measure are irrelevant to the incidental take

analysis. Discussion of the limits for minimization under section 7, and distinction from

mitigation allowances under section 10, can be found in Section 2.1(C) of this handbook.

Since conservation measures are part of the proposed action, their implementation is required

under the terms of the consultation. However, conservation recommendations (which may be

provided at the end of the consultation package) are discretionary suggestions made by the

Services for consideration by the agency or applicant.

Status of the species/critical habitat

This section presents the biological or ecological information relevant to formulating the

biological opinion. Appropriate information on the species' life history, its habitat and

distribution, and other data on factors necessary to its survival, is included to provide

background for analyses in later sections. Note that when designated critical habitat is

affected a companion analysis is done for that habitat. This analysis documents the effects of

all past human and natural activities or events that have led to the current status of the species. 

This information is presented in listing documents, and refined in recovery plans.

When the Services' review focuses on the effects of the action on a discrete recovery unit or

designated critical habitat unit, this section of the biological opinion describes the status of

that unit and its significance to the species as listed or to the designated critical habitat. For

example, if the opinion focuses on the Chesapeake Bay recovery unit of the bald eagle, the

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 101 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-20

status of that recovery unit is discussed including the recovery unit's role in both the survival

and recovery of the species as listed.

The following types of information should be considered for inclusion in the biological

opinion. All information may not be available for all species. However, Services biologists

should use the best available scientific or commercial data. Pertinent information can be

gathered from listing rules, including critical habitat designations, recovery plans, and

published and unpublished studies done on the species. Once this section is developed for a

given species, it can be used in successive biological opinions. Modification is necessary only

when new information is developed.

a. Species/critical habitat description

This section should briefly describe the species and/or critical habitat, discussing the current

legal status of the species, including listing history, and current known range of the listed

species found in the action area. For critical habitat, the discussion should include the extent

of designated critical habitat, the primary constituent elements identified in the final rule, and

any activities which have been identified as having the potential for altering the primary

constituent elements.

b. Life history

A large number of life history variables are relevant to jeopardy analyses. These variables

help determine a species' population size, age distribution, sensitivity to a proposed action's

effects, ability to recover from adverse effects, and ability to recolonize areas from which it

has been extirpated. Relevant life history variables include, but are not limited to: longevity;

age distribution; age to maturity; reproductive strategy (for example, the number of times

mature individuals reproduce in a lifetime, or whether mature individuals reproduce sexually

or asexually); recruitment; seasonal distribution patterns; biogeography; food habits; niche; life

cycle; hosts and symbionts; predators and competitors; and disease factors.

c. Population dynamics

The size of a population and its natural variance over time are important characteristics

affecting the species' response to disturbance factors. For many species, there is only cursory

natural history or status survey information available. However, detailed demographic

analyses have recently been undertaken for some species. The level of discussion in this

section will depend upon the detail and quality of the information available.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 102 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-21

Population size: This species characteristic is often emphasized in consultations. Reduction

in population size may jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species

because the longer a species remains at low population levels, the greater the probability of

extinction from chance events, inbreeding depression, or additional environmental disturbance. 

However, although population size has a clear relationship to a species' extinction probability,

it can be less important than population variability and should be used carefully. How long a

species will persist before extinction depends on more than population size. Large

populations may not protect a species from extinction in the face of extreme environmental

disturbance.

Population variability: Fluctuations in a species' population over time can affect significantly

the probability of its extinction. Population variability is affected by several characteristics of

a species' life history: unstable age distributions and reproductive rates; widely variable

mortalities resulting from unstable food resources or predation; population density; sex ratios;

recolonization rates; and genetic viability. As a population fluctuates, one or more factors can

lead to a chance extinction, e.g., irreversibly lowering population size to a point where it can

no longer recover. Consequently, an action increasing a species' population variability may

affect the continued existence of the species more significantly than a reduction in population

size.

Population stability: Population stability is the ability of a species' population to resist change

or dramatic fluctuations over time. It directly affects a species' sensitivity to the adverse

effects of a proposed action. Even-age distribution, high reproductive rates, or long life

spans with multiple reproductive periods can stabilize a population.

d. Status and distribution

Information on the status and distribution of listed species and designated critical habitat helps

establish the environmental basis for a consultation. The Federal Register Notice with the

final rule listing a species or designating critical habitat is a good starting point for gathering

this type of information. The following factors should provide a reasonable environmental

setting within which to consider the action and cumulative effects for the consultation.

Reasons for listing: The reasons for listing a species or designating critical habitat are

important considerations. For example, a species listed because of commercial exploitation

may be less sensitive to habitat loss than a species listed because of habitat loss.

Rangewide trend: Many listed species are declining throughout their range, therefore the

overall population trend of a species has implications for new proposals that could result in

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 103 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-22

additional effects on the species. The trends of the remaining populations of listed species

form the basis for evaluating the effects of a proposed action on that species.

New threats: Often, factors not considered when a species was first listed can threaten its

continued existence, and must be considered when establishing the environmental baseline. 

For example, the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), an exotic species threatening native

mussel fauna throughout its range, wasn't considered when most native mussels were listed.

e. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected

This section summarizes the previous discussion in Status of the species/ critical habitat and

identifies those species or designated critical habitat likely to be adversely affected by the

proposed action, which will be considered further in the remaining sections of the biological

opinion. If the action agency requests consultation on a beneficial action, that will be noted

here. Other listed species/designated critical habitat present in the project area are also listed

here along with the reasons they are not likely to be adversely affected. Since the Services

concur with the action agency's determination of "is not likely to adversely affect," a statement

that those species will not be considered further in the consultation should be included.

Environmental baseline

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading

to the current status of the species, its habitat (including designated critical habitat), and

ecosystem, within the action area. The environmental baseline is a "snapshot" of a species'

health at a specified point in time. It does not include the effects of the action under review in

the consultation.

a. Status of the species within the action area

Unless the species' range is wholly contained within the action area, this analysis is a subset of

the preceding rangewide status discussion. The purpose is to analyze the effects on the

species and/or critical habitat at the action level. For example, the following issues are

considered:

o the percent or amount of the species range or designated critical habitat in the action

area;

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 104 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-23

o whether the effect is quantitative, qualitative, or both;

o the distribution of the affected and unaffected habitat; and

o if critical habitat will be impacted, the effect on the constituent elements.

b. Factors affecting species environment within the action area

This analysis describes factors affecting the environment of the species or critical habitat in the

action area (Figure 4-3). The baseline includes State, tribal, local, and private actions already

affecting the species or that will occur contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. 

Unrelated Federal actions affecting the same species or critical habitat that have completed

formal or informal consultation are also part of the environmental baseline, as are Federal and

other actions within the action area that may benefit listed species or critical habitat.

An agency action can be removed from the environmental baseline analysis under any of the

following conditions:

o an action agency notifies the Services in writing that a previously proposed action

will not be implemented;

o a biological opinion for the proposed action (not an ongoing action) is no longer

valid because reinitiation of consultation is required and the action agency has been

so informed in writing by the Services, or has requested that the Services reinitiate

consultation; or

o alternatives have been implemented that remove all adverse effects.

Effects of the action

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on

the species and/or critical habitat and its interrelated and interdependent activities.

a. Factors to be considered

Proximity of the action: to the species, management units, or designated critical habitat units.

Distribution: geographic areas where the disturbance occurs (e.g., may be several small or

one large area).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 105 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-24

Timing: relationship to sensitive periods of a species' lifecycle.

Nature of the effect: effects of the action on elements of a species' lifecycle, population size

or variability, or distribution; or on the primary constituent elements of the critical habitat,

including direct and indirect effects.

Duration: The effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat depend largely

on the duration of its effects. Three potential categories of effects are: (1) a short-term event

whose effects are relaxed almost immediately (pulse effect), (2) a sustained, long-term, or

chronic event whose effects are not relaxed (press effect), or (3) a permanent event that sets a

new threshold for some feature of a species' environment (threshold effect). For many

species, a proposed action producing a single, short-term effect is less likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a species than a long-term chronic event or the permanent alteration of

a species' habitat.

Disturbance frequency: the mean number of events per unit of time affects a species

differently depending on its recovery rate. If the disturbance frequency is less than the species'

recovery rate, the species might persist in the face of the disturbance (Figures 4-7a-b). If the

disturbance frequency equals the species' recovery rate, the species becomes more sensitive to

the effects of other disturbances (Figure 4-7c). If the disturbance frequency is greater than a

species' recovery rate, the species will be unable to recover between disturbances (Figure 4-

7d). Disturbance frequency is an important consideration when evaluating the accumulating

effects of proposed actions on listed species and/or designated critical habitat, particularly

when it is combined with information on a species' recovery rate.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 106 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-25

Figure 4-7. Effects of the disturbance. (figures modified from Trudghill 1988)

Disturbance intensity: the effect of the disturbance on a population or species as a function of

the population or species' state after the disturbance. For example, a disturbance reducing the

size of a population or critical habitat unit by 40 percent is more intense than a disturbance

reducing population or unit size by 10 percent.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 107 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-26

Disturbance severity: the effect of a disturbance on a population or species as a function of

recovery rate. The longer the recovery rate, the more severe the disturbance. For example, a

disturbance from which a species or habitat takes 10 years to recover is more severe than a

disturbance requiring 2 years for recovery. A severe disturbance makes a population or

species more susceptible to the effects of multiple actions.

b. Analyses for effects of the action

Sufficient description of the proposed action should be included so that the subsequent

analysis of effects and the scope of the opinion are clear. If the analyses for this section

determine that some individuals of a listed animal might be "taken" as a direct or indirect

result of the proposed action, that information is included in the incidental take statement. 

Beneficial effects: are those effects of an action that are wholly positive, without any adverse

effects, on a listed species or designated critical habitat. Determination that an action will

have beneficial effects is a "may affect" situation (see section 3.5). However, since there are

no adverse effects, formal consultation is not required. Biological opinions may discuss

beneficial effects if the applicant requests it, or if a biological assessment considers numerous

species, some with adverse effects, and one or more with beneficial effects.

Example: The National Park Service proposes to modify an existing rock climbing

management plan that allows climbing in historic peregrine falcon nesting areas. The

new plan restricts climbing activities to areas outside of a zone 1/4 mile wide on either

side of active peregrine falcon aeries during the breeding season. This protects the birds

from human disturbance and eliminates take that could occur if an adult was flushed from

an aerie with eggs or young needing incubation or brooding to survive. Therefore, the

effects are wholly beneficial.

Direct effects: the direct or immediate effects of the project on the species or its habitat, e.g.,

driving an off road vehicle through the nesting habitat of the piping plover may destroy its

ground nest; building a housing unit may destroy the habitat of an endangered mouse. Direct

effects result from the agency action including the effects of interrelated actions and

interdependent actions (see definitions below for clarification). Future Federal actions that are

not a direct effect of the action under consideration (and not included in the environmental

baseline or treated as indirect effects) are not considered in this biological opinion.

Interrelated and interdependent actions: Effects of the action under consultation are analyzed

together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated to, or interdependent with, that

action. An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 108 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-27

on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has

no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. (Note: the regulations refer

to the action under consultation as the “larger action” [50 CFR § 402.02]). In fact, the use of

the term “larger” has proven to be confusing when applied in the case of a modification to an

existing project. Instead of keeping the inquiry on whether other activities are interrelated to

or interdependent with the modification, it has unintentionally and inappropriately shifted the

focus to an inquiry on whether the modification itself is interrelated to or interdependent with

the “larger” action or project. To better understand how the interdependent or interrelated

analysis should work, see the detailed examples below.

As a practical matter, the analysis of whether other activities are interrelated to, or

interdependent with, the proposed action under consultation should be conducted by applying

a “but for” test. The biologist should ask whether another activity in question would occur

“but for” the proposed action under consultation. If the answer is “no,” that the activity in

question would not occur but for the proposed action, then the activity is interrelated or

interdependent and should be analyzed with the effects of the action. If the answer is “yes,”

that the activity in question would occur regardless of the proposed action under consultation,

then the activity is not interdependent or interrelated and would not be analyzed with the

effects of the action under consultation. There will be times when the answer to this question

will not be apparent on its face. The biologist should ask follow-up questions to the relevant

parties to determine the relationship of the activity to the proposed action under consultation. 

It is important to remember that interrelated or interdependent activities are measured against

the proposed action. That is, the relevant inquiry is whether the activity in question should

be analyzed with the effects of the action under consultation because it is interrelated to, or

interdependent with, the proposed action. Be careful not to reverse the analysis by analyzing

the relationship of the proposed action against the other activity. For example, as cited below,

if the proposed action is the addition of a second turbine to an existing dam, the question is

whether the dam (the other activity) is interrelated to or interdependent with the proposed

action (the addition of the turbine), not the reverse.

Example: The Corps of Engineers requests consultation for construction of a dam which

requires a section 404 permit. The dam will provide water to private irrigation canals

that will come on line once the dam is completed. The private irrigation canals are

interrelated to the proposed dam and must be considered in a biological opinion for the

larger water development project since they would not be in existence "but for" the

presence of the proposed dam under consultation. Similarly, a power turbine to be

constructed concurrently with the dam cannot function and has no independent utility

"but for" the dam and is, therefore, interrelated with the project. Thus the effects of this

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 109 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-28

turbine on fish passage and water quality are to be considered in the biological opinion

on the proposed dam.

Ten years after construction of the dam, a federal permit is needed to add a second

turbine to the dam to increase power generation. The addition of the turbine, as the

proposed action under consultation, is now the “larger action” against which the “but

for” test for interrelated or interdependent effects would be applied. The pre-existing

dam has independent utility without the new turbine and therefore is not interrelated to,

or interdependent with, the proposed action. Ongoing effects of the existing dam are

already included in the Environmental Baseline and would not be considered an effect of

the proposed action under consultation. Activities which would be interdependent and

interrelated to the proposed turbine could include construction of new power lines or

conversion of natural habitat if the additional power capacity allowed for the

development of a manufacturing facility that was dependent upon the new power grid.

Later, a new federal safety law requires the dam operator to construct a fuse plug on an

existing spillway which improves response to emergency flood conditions. Construction

of the fuse plug is now the proposed “larger action.” Again, the existing dam is not

interdependent or interrelated to the proposed fuse plug because it does not depend upon

the proposed action for its existence. That is, the test is not whether the fuse plug in

some way assists or facilitates in the continued operation of the pre-existing project, but

instead whether the water project could not exist "but for" the fuse plug. Because the

answer is that the project would exist independent of the fuse plug, the operation of that

project is not interrelated or interdependent. Accordingly, the biologist would not

consider the effects of the dam to be effects of the “larger” action under consultation (the

proposed construction of the fuse plug). However, if the fuse plug would allow a greater

flow of water through the spillway, thereby requiring the operator to increase the depth

of the spillway channel and armor it with concrete, such activities would be interrelated

to the proposed action.

Example: Another example would be a proposed agency action to enlarge the water

supply storage capacity of an existing flood control reservoir. An existing water supply

system into which the stored water will be released does not depend on the proposed

action, and hence is not interrelated. 

When one or more Federal actions are determined by the Services to be interdependent or

interrelated to the proposed action, or are indirect effects of the proposed action, they are

combined in the consultation and a lead agency is determined for the overall consultation.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 110 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-29

Indirect effects: are caused by or result from the proposed action, are later in time, and are

reasonably certain to occur, e.g., predators may follow ORV tracks into piping plover nesting

habitat and destroy nests; the people moving into the housing unit bring cats that prey on the

mice left in the adjacent habitat. Indirect effects may occur outside of the area directly

affected by the action.

Indirect effects may include other Federal actions that have not undergone section 7

consultation but will result from the action under consideration. In order to treat these actions

as indirect effects in the biological opinion, they must be reasonably certain to occur, as

evidenced by appropriations, work plans, permits issued, or budgeting; they follow a pattern

of activity undertaken by the agency in the action area; or they are a logical extension of the

proposed action.

Non-Federal activities with indirect effects can also be predicted, particularly for ongoing

projects that have a past pattern of use that is anticipated to continue.

Example: A very complex example of indirect effects arose in determining effects of

renewing water service contracts from a large reclamation project (Friant Unit of the

Central Valley Project) in the San Joaquin Basin of California. Upon checking with other

Federal and State agencies, the FWS determined that the distribution of water for

agricultural use on the higher east side of the Valley provided a hydrologic head

maintaining the groundwater table on the west side of the Valley at a level making it

economical to pump. As a result, occupied habitats for several species on the west side

of the Valley were being destroyed because the pumped water could be used to convert

this land to agriculture. The California Department of Water Resources provided trend

data indicating a continuing conversion of habitat of 10,000 to 30,000 acres per year. 

These data were used to assess future non-Federal effects of the project.

Several court cases provide examples of indirect effects of a proposed action. In National

Wildlife Federation v. Coleman, 529 F.2d 359 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979 (1976),

the court ruled that indirect effects of private development resulting from proposed

construction of highway interchanges had to be considered as impacts of a proposed Federal

highway project, even though the private development had not been planned at the time the

highway project was proposed. In another case, Riverside Irrigation District v. Andrews, 758

F.2d 508 (10th Cir. 1985), the court ruled that the Corps of Engineers must consider the

effects of consumptive water uses made possible by the proposed dam on critical habitat for

whooping cranes 150 miles away, in addition to the local impacts of placing fill for the dam.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 111 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-30

Determining the effect of ongoing water projects: Under the Federal Power Act, as amended

by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) issues new licenses for existing hydropower projects as the original

licenses expire. FERC has determined that these new licenses represent a new commitment of

resources. Therefore, a section 7 analysis of the project's effects on listed species is done in

the same way as new projects. When analyzing these water projects, as well as water contract

renewals for Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) programs and ongoing discretionary operations

of Bureau and Corps of Engineers water facilities, use the same approach as for other types of

section 7 analyses.

o The total effects of all past activities, including effects of the past operation of the

project, current non-Federal activities, and Federal projects with completed section

7 consultations, form the environmental baseline;

o To this baseline, future direct and indirect impacts of the operation over the new

license or contract period, including effects of any interrelated and interdependent

activities, and any reasonably certain future non-Federal activities (cumulative

effects), are added to determine the total effect on listed species and their habitat.

Annual operating permits issued prior to issuance of a new hydropower license are subject to

section 7 consultation if the Federal agency has discretion to determine the terms of the annual

permits.

c. Species' response to a proposed action

[Note: For critical habitat analyses, many of the following considerations can be addressed in

terms of the effect on the functional suitability of the habitat to support the species.]

Numbers of individuals/populations in the action area affected: Many jeopardy analyses

emphasize the effects of a proposed action on the size of a species' populations because small

populations are more threatened by extinction due to demographic accidents than large

populations. However, the length of time a species exists before extinction depends on more

than population size. Large population size may not protect a species in the face of extreme

disturbance. A species' response to disturbance will depend on the number of individuals or

amount of habitat affected, although the age, sex, breeding status, and distribution of affected

individuals, as well as the genetic variability within the remaining population(s), are equally

important because they determine a population's ability to recover from the loss of individuals.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 112 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-31

Sensitivity to change: This factor relates to the degree to which a population or species is

prone to change when disturbed.

Resilience: This factor relates to the characteristics of populations, species, or critical habitat

units allowing them to recover from different magnitudes of disturbance. For example, the

greater the reproductive rate, the more resilient the species may be to population losses. 

Moreover, habitat specificity and other factors also contribute to a species' resiliency. Critical

habitat also has resilience: grasslands, for example, can be more resilient to the adverse

effects of fire than a forest. In a biological opinion, the biologist should determine the type

and severity of the disturbance and determine how resilient the species or its habitat is to that

particular type of disturbance.

Recovery rate: This factor relates to the time required for an individual, population, species,

community, or ecosystem to return to equilibrium after exposure to a disturbance. A

population, species, community, or ecosystem that has a fast recovery rate is called stable. It

is often difficult to know the recovery rate or resilience of species. In the absence of

information, the best biological estimate should be used.

Cumulative effects

Section 7 regulations require the Federal action agency to provide an analysis of cumulative

effects, along with other information, when requesting initiation of formal consultation. 

Additionally, the Services are required to consider cumulative effects in formulating their

biological opinions (50 CFR §402.14(g)(3) and (4)). The standardized paragraph to introduce

the cumulative effects section is:

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions

that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological

opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not

considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to

section 7 of the Act.

The concept of cumulative effects is frequently misunderstood as it relates to determining

likely jeopardy or adverse modification. Cumulative effects include effects of future State,

tribal, local, and private actions, not involving a Federal action, that are reasonably certain to

occur within the action area under consideration. Future Federal actions requiring separate

consultation (unrelated to the proposed action) are not considered in the cumulative effects

section.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 113 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-32

The "reasonably certain to occur" clause is a key factor in assessing and applying cumulative

effects in biological opinions. First, cumulative effects involve only future non-Federal

actions: past and present impacts of non-Federal actions are part of the environmental

baseline. Indicators of actions "reasonably certain to occur" may include, but are not limited

to: approval of the action by State, tribal or local agencies or governments (e.g., permits,

grants); indications by State, tribal or local agencies or governments that granting authority

for the action is imminent; project sponsors' assurance the action will proceed; obligation of

venture capital; or initiation of contracts. The more State, tribal or local administrative

discretion remaining to be exercised before a proposed non-Federal action can proceed, the

less there is a reasonable certainty the project will be authorized. Speculative non-Federal

actions that may never be implemented are not factored into the "cumulative effects" analysis. 

At the same time, "reasonably certain to occur" does not require a guarantee the action will

occur. The action agency and the Services should consider the economic, administrative, and

legal hurdles remaining before the action proceeds.

The cumulative effects analysis is the last step or factor considered in formulating the

biological opinion. Sometimes, cumulative effects can be the deciding factor in determining

the likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification. However, this is frequently the least

documented part of biological opinions, due to the lack of definitive information on future

State, tribal, local, or private actions that are unrelated to the action undergoing consultation.

Gathering information on cumulative effects often requires more effort than merely gathering

information on a proposed action. One of the first places to seek cumulative effects

information is in documents provided by the action agency such as NEPA analyses for the

action. The Services can review the broader NEPA discussion of cumulative effects, and

apply the Act's narrower cumulative effects definition. Information on future non-Federal

actions can be obtained through observations and inquiries during field reconnaissance in the

action area; discussions with State game and fish agencies and other Federal, State, tribal and

local agencies, and conservation organizations; and newspapers and other sources of local

information (e.g., radio, television, libraries).

When addressing a section 7 action within a larger section 10(a)(1)(B) planning area, nonFederal proposals for development in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) are considered

cumulative effects for that planning area until the section 7 consultation for the section

10(a)(1)(B) permit is completed, at which time the effects of those projects become part of

the environmental baseline for future consultations.

Example: Formal consultation was conducted with the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) on construction of a new highway in Latimer County, Oklahoma. The

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 114 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-33

endangered American burying beetle is known to use forest and forest/edge habitats

within the immediate area of the highway, and activities disturbing the soil surface of the

beetle's habitat can impact reproduction. Intensive surface mining for coal and natural

gas development were occurring in Latimer County and within the action area. Both of

these activities would "benefit" from the new highway, but were independent of the

highway construction. Coal mining, regulated by the Office of Surface Mining, was not

considered a cumulative effect because it requires section 7 consultation. Future natural

gas development is a cumulative effect as it is regulated by the State. The frequent

occurrence of new drilling sites in the area indicated this activity was "reasonably certain

to occur" in the future. Further, several landowners in the action area had recently

signed contracts to sell their mineral rights to gas companies.

Conclusion

The conclusion section presents the Services' opinion regarding whether the aggregate effects

of the factors analyzed under "environmental baseline," "effects of the action," and

"cumulative effects" in the action area - when viewed against the status of the species or

critical habitat as listed or designated- are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

the species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Note: Conditional no jeopardy biological opinions (a conclusion of no jeopardy if the

action agency undertakes certain mitigative measures) do not comply with section 7

regulations or the intent of the Act. The Services can evaluate only the Federal action

proposed, not the action as the Services would like to see that action modified.

The standardized statement for introducing the conclusion section is as follows:

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the

action area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the proposed

(action) and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the

(action), as proposed, (is/is not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

(species), and (is/is not) likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical

habitat. [If no critical habitat has been designated for the species or the action will not

affect designated critical habitat, use one of the following statements.] No critical

habitat has been designated for this species, therefore, none will be affected. -ORCritical habitat for this species has been designated at (location), however, this

action does not affect that area and no destruction or adverse modification of that

critical habitat is anticipated.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 115 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-34

The remainder of the Conclusion section should summarize in a clear, concise manner the

reasons for the finding(s) in terms of effects for each listed species or designated critical

habitat.

This section addresses only two issues: whether the proposed action is likely to (1)

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or (2) result in the destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat. The acceptable conclusions for this section of a

biological opinion are as follows:

Jeopardy:

Likely to jeopardize the continued existence of [one or more species]

Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of [one or more species]

Note: if the consultation is a reinitiation for consideration of effects on a subsequently

designated critical habitat, re-evaluate the previous finding of jeopardy or no jeopardy here

before continuing the analysis for adverse modification of critical habitat.

Destruction or adverse modification:

No critical habitat has been designated for this species; therefore, none will be destroyed

or adversely modified.

Critical habitat has been designated for this species, but the action is not likely to affect

that critical habitat. Therefore, there is no destruction or adverse modification of the

critical habitat.

The action is likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

The action is not likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Analyses for jeopardy and adverse modification

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to satisfy two standards in carrying out

their programs. Federal agencies must ensure that their activities are not likely to: (1)

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, or (2) result in the destruction or

adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal

agencies to confer with the Services on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 116 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-35

any species proposed for listing or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any

proposed critical habitat.

Regulations implementing these sections of the Act define "jeopardize the continued

existence of" as: "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or

indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed

species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species," and

"destruction or adverse modification" as: "a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably

diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. 

Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those

physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical."

"Critical Habitat" for listed species consists of (1) specific areas within the geographical area

currently occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of

section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (i) essential to

the conservation of the species, and (ii) that may require special management considerations

or protection, and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the

time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a determination

by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (50 CFR

§424.02(d)).

The Services' abilities to designate unoccupied habitat as critical habitat when such areas are

essential to the conservation (recovery) of listed species adds another dimension to the

analysis. It is possible to conclude adverse modification for proposed actions if unoccupied

critical habitat is sufficiently affected to appreciably diminish its value for both survival and

recovery. Therefore, it is practical to distinguish between occupied and unoccupied critical

habitat when a biological opinion is prepared.

In evaluating project effects on critical habitat, the Services must be satisfied that the

constituent elements of the critical habitat likely will not be altered or destroyed by proposed

activities to the extent that the survival and recovery of affected species would be appreciably

reduced. Modification or destruction of designated critical habitat that does not reach this

threshold is not prohibited by section 7. 

Independent analyses are made for jeopardy when the species is present or potentially

present, and for adverse modification when designated critical habitat is affected. When

both analyses are made and both standards are exceeded, the reasonable and prudent

alternatives should address eliminating or reducing both conditions.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 117 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-36

The determination of jeopardy or adverse modification is based on the effects of the action

on the continued existence of the entire population of the listed species or on a listed

population, and/or the effect on critical habitat as designated in a final rulemaking. When

multiple units of critical habitat are designated for particular purposes, these units may serve

as the basis of the analysis if protection of different facets of the species' life cycle or its

distribution is essential to both its survival and recovery. Adverse effects on individuals of a

species or constituent elements or segments of critical habitat generally do not result in

jeopardy or adverse modification determinations unless that loss, when added to the

environmental baseline, is likely to result in significant adverse effects throughout the species'

range, or appreciably diminish the capability of the critical habitat to satisfy essential

requirements of the species.

Definitions to aid in determination of jeopardy or adverse effect

Appreciably diminish the value: to considerably reduce the capability of designated or

proposed critical habitat to satisfy requirements essential to both the survival and recovery of

a listed species.

Constituent elements: physical and biological features of designated or proposed critical

habitat essential to the conservation of the species, including, but not limited to: (1) space for

individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,

minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for

breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats

that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographic and

ecological distributions of a species.

Occupied critical habitat: critical habitat that contains individuals of the species at the time

of the project analysis. A species does not have to occupy critical habitat throughout the year

for the habitat to be considered occupied (e.g. migratory birds). Subsequent events affecting

the species may result in this habitat becoming unoccupied.

Recovery: improvement in the status of a listed species to the point at which listing is no

longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Said another way,

recovery is the process by which species' ecosystems are restored and/or threats to the species

are removed so self-sustaining and self-regulating populations of listed species can be

supported as persistent members of native biotic communities.

Survival: the species' persistence, as listed or as a recovery unit, beyond the conditions

leading to its endangerment, with sufficient resilience to allow recovery from endangerment. 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 118 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-37

Said another way, survival is the condition in which a species continues to exist into the future

while retaining the potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by a species with a

sufficiently large population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity,

and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists in an

environment providing all requirements for completion of the species' entire life cycle,

including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter.

Unoccupied critical habitat: critical habitat not occupied (i.e., not permanently or

seasonally occupied) by the listed species at the time of the project analysis. The habitat may

be suitable, but the species has been extirpated from this portion of its range. Conversely, 

critical habitat may have been designated in areas unsuitable for the species, but restorable to

suitability with proper management, if the area is necessary to either stabilize the population

or assure eventual recovery of a listed species. As recovery proceeds, this formerly

unoccupied habitat may become occupied.

Some designated, unoccupied habitat may never be occupied by the species, but was

designated because it is essential for conserving the species because it maintains factors

constituting the species' habitat. For example, critical habitat may be designated for an

upstream area maintaining the hydrology of the species' habitat downstream from the

designated area (e.g. Concho water snake).

a. Jeopardy analysis

In determining whether an action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species,

the action is viewed against the aggregate effects of everything that has led to the species'

current status and, for non-Federal activities, those things likely to affect the species in the

future. At this point, the biologist sums up the previous analyses done to determine (1) the

status of the species, (2) the environmental baseline, (3) all effects of the proposed action, and

(4) the cumulative effects of other anticipated actions.

The final analysis then looks at whether, given the aggregate effects, the species can be

expected to both survive and recover, as those terms are defined above. For the jeopardy

analysis, this survival is framed in terms of the species' reproduction, numbers, and distribution

in the wild.

Exceptions to the application of the jeopardy standard to an entire species: In the

majority of cases, a jeopardy opinion is rendered when the total of the species' status,

environmental baseline, effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects lead to the

conclusion that the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 119 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-38

entire species, subspecies, or vertebrate population as listed. However, for some wideranging species or those with disjunct or fragmented distributions, strict adherence to this

general policy can result in significant accumulated losses of habitat and population that may,

in total, result in a jeopardy situation.

In the past, exceptions from applying the jeopardy standard to an entire species were

granted by memorandum for specific populations or "recovery units" of a species. 

That process of limiting the exceptions to those populations/recovery units listed in a

memo is hereby discontinued and all future exceptions will adhere to the following

guidance.

Jeopardy analyses may be based on an assessment of impacts to distinct population segments

(DPS) of a species documented per the Services’ joint policy on DPS (1995) in a final listing

rule, or to a DPS as identified in a NMFS recovery plan, or to recovery units when those units

are documented as necessary to both the survival and recovery of the species in a final

recovery plan(s), for which a notice of availability has been published in the Federal Register. 

For species which had recovery plan notices published prior to this guidance, an addendum to

the recovery plan, documenting the need to evaluate jeopardy on separate recovery units, can

be written, and notice of its availability should be published in the Federal Register. FWS

Regional recovery coordinators should be able to provide a list of species which meet this

requirement.

At publication, a species' recovery plan lays out the best available scientific information

relative to the areas and environmental elements needed for that species to recover. Recovery

plans may geographically describe actual recovery units (e.g., show lines on a map) essential

to recovering the species that may or may not have been designated as critical habitat. Figures

4-8 and 4-9 illustrate such site-specific delineation of recovery units for the Higgin's eye pearly

mussel.

When an action appreciably impairs or precludes the capability of a recovery unit from

providing both the survival and recovery function assigned it, that action may represent

jeopardy to the species. When using this type of analysis, include in the biological opinion a

description of how the action affects not only the recovery unit's capability, but the

relationship of the recovery unit to both the survival and recovery of the listed species as a

whole.

For example, the recovery plan for the Higgin's eye pearly mussel identifies several sitespecific units of habitat essential to the recovery of the species. An action that adversely

affects the critical features of one of these recovery units can jeopardize the survival and

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 120 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-39

recovery of the entire species because each unit is an essential link in the same chain. 

However, when dealing with a recovery unit keep in mind the status of the species as a whole

to ensure that an action affecting only one unit without broader geographical implications

does not jeopardize the whole species. For example, the Prairie du Chien recovery unit of the

Higgin's eye pearly mussel, considered alone, might be relatively healthy and appear to be able

to sustain some impact before the species in that recovery unit is jeopardized. But, as

identified by the approved recovery plan, that recovery unit contains the only known

reproducing individuals of the species and may represent a major source of individuals for

ensuring the survival of other recovery units. Any loss of reproductive capability in the Prairie

du Chien unit can represent jeopardy because the survival of the entire species would be

significantly impaired.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 121 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-40

Figure 4-8. Example of "recovery unit."

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 122 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-41

b. Analysis of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat

Critical habitat includes those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of

listed species that may require special management considerations or protection. These

physical and biological features include:

o space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;

o food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

o cover or shelter;

o sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal;

o habitats protected from disturbance or representative of the historic geographical

and ecological distributions of a species.

Critical habitat designations must be thorough and accurate, encompassing habitat and its

constituent elements which describe an area that is essential to the ultimate survival and

recovery of the listed species. However, many critical habitat designations predate the

requirement for identification of constituent elements or habitat qualities necessary to allow a

species to survive and recover from the threat of extinction. In such cases, the biologist

should use the best scientific and commercial data available to determine and document those

characteristics of the designated critical habitat that support the species' survival and recovery. 

If an action affects critical habitat, but does not appreciably diminish the value of constituent

elements essential to the species' conservation, the adverse modification threshold is not

exceeded. On the other hand, the adverse modification threshold is exceeded when the

proposed action will adversely affect the critical habitat's constituent elements or their

management in a manner likely to appreciably diminish or preclude the role of that habitat in

both the survival and recovery of the species. For conference purposes, constituent elements

described in the proposed critical habitat rule are used to determine likely jeopardy or

adverse modification.

The consultation or conference focuses on the entire critical habitat area designated unless the

critical habitat rule identifies another basis for analysis, such as discrete units and/or groups of

units necessary for different life cycle phases, units representing distinctive habitat

characteristics or gene pools, or units fulfilling essential geographic distribution requirements.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 123 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-42

To determine if a proposed action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, refer

to the critical habitat designation in 50 CFR §17 Subpart I. The rule provides a narrative

description of the area(s) included in the designation. A map of the critical habitat may be

provided, and since 1985, the rule may identify constituent elements associated with the

habitat.

The level of detail used to describe constituent elements contained in critical habitat

designations varies widely. Some, usually older, critical habitat designations do not describe

constituent elements, while others provide only a general description of the types of habitat

contained within the designation.

For example, the critical habitat designation for the Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus

polionotus trissyllepsis) identifies the following constituent elements: "... dunes and interdunal

areas, and associated grasses and shrubs that provide food and cover." Similarly, the critical

habitat designation for the Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia) identifies primary constituent elements

as "...clean permanent water with pools and intermediate riffle areas and/or intermittent pools

maintained by bedrock or by subsurface flows in areas shaded by canyon walls." As data

become available on the species' habitat needs and the qualitative and quantitative attributes of

the physical and biological features representing "clean permanent water," it becomes possible

to determine if an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

The following steps help determine if a proposed action is likely to destroy or adversely

modify critical habitat:

1. Review the status of the critical habitat as designated and the environmental baseline

within the action area. The status and environmental baseline for any constituent

elements may have been modified by actions considered in earlier biological

opinions.

2. Those opinions should be consulted to determine the current baseline.

3. Evaluate the effects of the proposed action on the constituent elements of critical

habitat.

4. Evaluate the cumulative effects in the action area on the critical habitat and its

constituent elements.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 124 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-43

5. Assess whether the aggregate effects of these analyses will appreciably diminish the

value of the critical habitat in sustaining its role in both the survival and recovery of

the species.

Critical habitat is not the same as a wilderness designation. Many activities can be expected to

take place within critical habitat without conflicting with the prohibitions found in section

7(a)(2) of the Act.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives

This section lays out reasonable and prudent alternative actions, if any, that the Services

believe the agency or the applicant may take to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the

species or destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (50 CFR

§402.14(h)(3)). When a reasonable and prudent alternative consists of multiple activities, it is

imperative that the opinion contain a thorough explanation of how each component of the

alternative is essential to avoid jeopardy and/or adverse modification. The action agency

and the applicant (if any) should be given every opportunity to assist in developing the

reasonable and prudent alternatives. Often they are the only ones who can determine if an

alternative is within their legal authority and jurisdiction, and if it is economically and

technologically feasible.

If adopted by the action agency, the reasonable and prudent alternatives do not undergo

subsequent consultation to meet the requirements of section 7(a)(2). The action agency's

acceptance in writing of the Services' reasonable and prudent alternative concludes the

consultation process.

Section 7 regulations (50 CFR §402.02) limit reasonable and prudent alternatives to:

o alternatives the Services believe will avoid the likelihood of jeopardy or adverse

modification,

o alternatives that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended

purpose of the action,

o alternatives that can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency's

legal authority and jurisdiction, and 

o alternatives that are economically and technologically feasible.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 125 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-44

If the Services conclude that certain alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy and

adverse modification, but such alternatives fail to meet one of the other three elements in the

definition of "reasonable and prudent alternative," the Services should document the

alternative in the biological opinion to show it was considered during the formal consultation

process. This information could prove important during any subsequent proceeding before

the Endangered Species Committee (established under section 7(e) of the Act), which reviews

requests for exemptions from the requirements of section 7(a)(2).

Although a strong effort should always be made to identify reasonable and prudent

alternatives, in some cases, no alternatives are available to avoid jeopardy or adverse

modification. Examples include cases in which the corrective action relies on:

o an alternative not under consideration (e.g., locating a project in uplands instead of

requiring a Corps permit to fill a wetland);

o actions of a third party not involved in the proposed action (e.g., only the County,

which is not a party to the consultation, has the authority to regulate speed limits);

o actions on lands over which the action agency has no jurisdiction or no residual

authority to enforce compliance; and

o data not available on which to base an alternative.

In these cases, a statement is included that no reasonable and prudent alternatives are

available, along with an explanation. When data are not available to support an alternative,

the explanation is that according to the best available scientific and commercial data, there are

no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action undergoing consultation.

The Services are committed to working closely with action agencies and applicants in

developing reasonable and prudent alternatives. The Services will, in most cases, defer to the

action agency's expertise and judgment as to the feasibility of an alternative. When the agency

maintains that the alternative is not reasonable or not prudent, the reasoning for its position is

to be provided in writing for the administrative record. The Services retain the final decision

on which reasonable and prudent alternatives are included in the biological opinion. When

necessary, the Services may question the agency's view of the scope of its authorities to

implement reasonable and prudent alternatives.

The following standardized paragraphs are used in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives

section:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 126 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-45

Introductory paragraph:

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define reasonable

and prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal

consultation, that: (1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the

intended purpose of the action; (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of

the action agency's legal authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and

technologically feasible; and (4) would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of

jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction

or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Closing paragraph:

Because this biological opinion has found (jeopardy/destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat), the (agency) is required to notify the Service of its

final decision on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives.

(B) Incidental Take Statement

"(4) If after consultation under subsection (a)(2) of this section, the Secretary

concludes that -

(A) the agency action will not violate such subsection, or offers reasonable and

prudent alternatives which the Secretary believes would not violate such

subsection;

(B) the taking of an endangered species or a threatened species incidental to the

agency action will not violate such subsection; and

(C) if an endangered species or a threatened species of a marine mammal is

involved, the taking is authorized pursuant to section 1371(a)(5) of this title;

the Secretary shall provide the Federal agency and the applicant concerned, if

any, with a written statement that -

(i) specifies the impact of such incidental taking on the species,

(ii) specifies those reasonable and prudent measures that the Secretary

considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact, 

(iii) in the case of marine mammals, specifies those measures that are

necessary to comply with section 1371(a)(5) of this title with regard to such

taking, and

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 127 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Section 9 prohibitions generally have been applied by regulation to threatened

species unless there are special rules that provide exemptions, or some other

alternative approach (see 50 CFR 17.31). To determine if section 9 prohibitions

apply to threatened species, check 50 CFR Part 17 and 50 CFR Part 227 for any

special rules that may have been promulgated for the species.

4-46

(iv) sets forth the terms and conditions (including, but not limited to, reporting

requirements) that must be complied with by the Federal agency or applicant

(if any), or both, to implement the measures specified under clauses (ii) and

(iii)."

 Section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act

As a matter of policy, the Services require that an incidental take statement be included in all

formal consultations, except those only involving plants, thus assuring the action agency that

this element of formal consultation has been considered.

What is incidental take?

Properly interpreting an incidental take statement requires familiarity with section 9 of the

Act, which identifies acts that are prohibited when dealing with any endangered and some

threatened species of fish and wildlife. When the consultation involves listed plants, the 1

agency is advised that the Act does not prohibit incidental take of these species. However,

cautions may be provided on prohibitions against certain deliberate removal or disturbance of

plants (see standardized statement on page 4- 47). The term "take" is defined by the Act 

(section 3(19)) to mean "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or

collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Most of these terms are commonly understood. However, the terms "harass" and "harm"

have been further defined by FWS regulations at 50 CFR §17.3, as follows:

o Harass means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the

likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly

disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding,

feeding, or sheltering.

o Harm means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include

significant habitat modification or degradation when it actually kills or injures

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 128 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-47

wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding,

feeding or sheltering.

NMFS has not defined the terms "harass" or "harm." A 1981 FWS Solicitor's opinion

(Appendix D, #SO-1) expands on these concepts, holding that an act that harasses wildlife

must demonstrate the likelihood of injury to the species and some degree of fault, whether

intentional or negligent. Thus, a private landowner who wishes to develop land that serves as

habitat for listed wildlife is not harassing that wildlife if reasonable measures are taken to

avoid their injury. However, if the modification of such habitat would likely result in death or

injury, the species nevertheless would be "harmed."

On June 29, 1995, the Supreme Court upheld the FWS' definition of harm to include adverse

modification of habitat in the Sweet Home case (Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of

Communities for a Great Oregon, et al., No. 94-859 [U.S. Supreme Court 1995]). A copy of

the Supreme Court decision can be found in Appendix A.

Identifying habitat modifications that harm individuals of a species involves understanding the

species' life history. For example, the Florida scrub jay is highly territorial and relies for its

existence on food cached within its territory. A project that destroys occupied habitat and

thus the food supply for that family group increases the likelihood of their starvation. 

Similarly, a number of birds are highly site-tenacious, returning year after year to the same

nesting site. Removal of nesting habitat on that site is likely to result in loss of the pair's

reproductive capability, and may result in loss of the pair for lack of available feeding or

nesting habitat. Opening up or fragmenting the habitat may similarly affect the species by

introducing increased predation or parasitism.

Incidental take statements exempt action agencies and their permittees from the Act's section

9 prohibitions if they comply with the reasonable and prudent measures and the implementing

terms and conditions of incidental take statements.

"(o) EXEMPTION AS PROVIDING EXCEPTION ON TAKING OF

ENDANGERED SPECIES - ". . . (2) any taking that is in compliance with the terms

and conditions specified in a written statement provided under subsection (b)(4)(iv) of

this section shall not be considered to be a prohibited taking of the species

concerned."

 Section 7(o)(2) of the Endangered Species Act

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 129 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-48

In order to be considered in an incidental take statement, any taking associated with an

agency's action must meet the following three criteria. The taking must:

o not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or

adversely modify designated critical habitat,

o result from an otherwise lawful activity, and

o be incidental to the purpose of the action.

An agency action can meet the first criterion if (1) reasonable and prudent alternatives

identified in a jeopardy or adverse modification biological opinion eliminate the likelihood

of jeopardy to the species or adverse modification of designated critical habitat or (2) the

Services make a finding of no jeopardy or no adverse modification. When the taking

associated with the action violates any one of these criteria, the Services provide a

documentation of that fact and a statement that such taking is prohibited by section 9.

In issuing an incidental take statement, the Services provide a statement of anticipated

incidental take with reasonable and prudent measures, as appropriate, to minimize such take. 

This statement provides an exemption from the taking prohibitions of section 9 only when the

agency and/or applicant demonstrate clear compliance with the implementing terms and

conditions. These terms and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measures designed

to minimize the impact of incidental take on the species as described in the incidental take

statement and are binding on the action agency.

In preparing an incidental take statement, the Services are responsible for documenting the

amount or extent of take anticipated; writing reasonable and prudent measures with

implementing terms and conditions that are clear, precise, and enforceable; and including

reporting requirements that assure timely compliance with the terms and conditions described.

The following standardized statements are provided for each section of the incidental take

statement. For standardized statements for consultations involving migratory birds or marine

mammals, see pages 4-56 and 4-57.

Introductory paragraph

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act 

prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without 

special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 130 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-49

kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is

further defined by FWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation

that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined

by FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to

listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns

which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental

take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out

of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section

7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is

not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is

in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by

the (agency) so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued

to the (applicant), as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. 

The (agency) has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this

incidental take statement. If the (agency) (1) fails to assume and implement the

terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the (applicant) to adhere to the terms

and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are

added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2)

may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the (agency or

applicant) must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to

the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]

When the biological opinion finds jeopardy or adverse modification without a reasonable

and prudent alternative, the introductory statement is as follows:

This biological opinion finds the proposed action will result in (likely jeopardy to

the species/destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat), and no

reasonable and prudent alternative can be identified. Any incidental taking is

prohibited by section 9 of the Act.

If listed plant species are present in the action area, the following special provisions apply: 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. 

However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that

the Act prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed

endangered plants or the malicious damage of such plants on areas under Federal

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 131 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-50

jurisdiction, or the destruction of endangered plants on non-Federal areas in

violation of State law or regulation or in the course of any violation of a State

criminal trespass law. [Include citations to any applicable State laws.]

Amount or extent of take anticipated

This section outlines the amount of take anticipated from the action. Generally, incidental

take is expressed as the number of individuals reasonably likely to be taken or the extent of

habitat likely to be destroyed or disturbed. In determining whether the proposed action is

reasonably likely to be the direct or indirect cause of incidental take, the Services use the

simple causation principle; i.e., "but for" the implementation of the proposed action and its

direct or indirect degradation of habitat, would actual injury or mortality to individuals of a

listed wildlife species be reasonably likely to occur? If the take would not occur but for the

proposed action, then the Services must describe the amount or extent of such anticipated

incidental take.

When preparing an incidental take statement, a specific number (for some species, expressed

as an amount or extent, e.g., all turtle nests not found and moved by the approved relocation

technique) or level of disturbance to habitat must be described. Take can be expressed also as

a change in habitat characteristics affecting the species (e.g., for an aquatic species, changes in

water temperature or chemistry, flows, or sediment loads) where data or information exists

which links such changes to the take of the listed species.

In some situations, the species itself or the effect on the species may be difficult to detect. 

However, some detectable measure of effect should be provided. For instance, the relative

occurrence of the species in the local community may be sufficiently predictable that impacts

on the community (usually surrogate species in the community) serve as a measure of take,

e.g., impacts to listed mussels may be measured by an index or other censusing technique that

is based on surveys of non-listed mussels. In this case, the discussion determining the level at

which incidental take will be exceeded (reinitiation level) describes factors for the non-listed

mussels indicating impact on the listed species, such as an amount or extent of decrease in

numbers or recruitment, or in community dynamics. Similarly, if a sufficient causal link is

demonstrated (i.e. the number of burrows affected or a quantitative loss of cover, food, water

quality, or symbionts), then this can establish a measure of the impact on the species or its

habitat and provide the yardstick for reinitiation.

In programmatic or national consultations, which evaluate planning documents or broad

programs (see Chapter 5, Special Consultations and Reviews), the best available scientific

data may not support the determination of any anticipated level of incidental take. In such

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 132 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-51

instances, the incidental take statement should indicate that, based on the best available data,

no incidental take is anticipated and that the issue will be reexamined during the consultation

process for site-specific actions under the umbrella of the larger planning document.

Also, the time period over which the incidental take is expected to occur is addressed in this

section. For example, the statement should distinguish between an instance in which a

permanent loss of two bald eagle nesting territories will result from construction of a new

bridge, and a case in which the two territories are likely to be abandoned only during the

actual construction period.

Standardized statements:

- Incidental take statement when no take is anticipated (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service does not anticipate the proposed action will incidentally take any

(species).

- Incidental take statement for a biological opinion of likely jeopardy when incidental take is

anticipated:

o For opinions with only one reasonable and prudent alternative:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that the reasonable and prudent alternative will be implemented.

o For opinions with more than one reasonable and prudent alternative, provide separate

estimates of anticipated take for each reasonable and prudent alternative, as appropriate:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that reasonable and prudent alternative number XX will be implemented.

- Introductory statement for amount and extent of take (jeopardy or non- jeopardy opinion):

The Service anticipates (number of individuals or extent of habitat resulting from

take of (species)) could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The incidental

take is expected to be in the form of (harm, harass, kill, etc.). [Separately specify

each type of take anticipated.]

[Provide a concise summary of the analysis leading to this determination.]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 133 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-52

 OR

The Service anticipates incidental take of (species) will be difficult to detect for the

following reason(s): [Incidental take of actual species numbers may be difficult to

detect when the species is wide-ranging; has small body size; finding a dead or impaired

specimen is unlikely; losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other

causes (e.g., oxygen depletions for aquatic species); or the species occurs in habitat (e.g.,

caves) that makes detection difficult]. However, the following level of take of this

species can be anticipated by loss of [quantify amount of surrogate species, food,

cover, other essential habitat element such as water quantity or quality, or symbiont]

because: [provide an explanation].

Effect of the take

The requirement that incidental take not reach the level of jeopardy or adverse modification

is addressed in the biological opinion that finds no jeopardy/no adverse modification for the

action or that provides reasonable and prudent alternative(s) to avoid jeopardy/adverse

modification.

Statement of impact:

o The following statement should be made when the biological opinion finds likely

jeopardy/adverse modification, and no reasonable and prudent alternative is available.

Because the proposed action is (1) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

(species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, and 

(2) no reasonable and prudent alternatives have been identified, any incidental

take resulting from the proposed action would be prohibited.

o The proposed action is not likely to result in jeopardy/adverse modification:

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of

anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat.

o The opinion contains reasonable and prudent alternatives:

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of

anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 134 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-53

adverse modification of critical habitat when (one of) the reasonable and prudent

alternative(s) is implemented.

Reasonable and prudent measures

The incidental take statement provides nondiscretionary measures that are necessary and

appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take. In a biological opinion where there are

a number of reasonable and prudent alternatives provided to eliminate jeopardy to a species,

there may be varying levels of incidental take associated with the alternatives. In that case,

the biological opinion may contain different incidental take statements, each with reasonable

and prudent measures and terms and conditions, for each reasonable and prudent alternative.

Section 7 requires minimization of the level of take. It is not appropriate to require mitigation

for the impacts of incidental take. Reasonable and prudent measures can include only actions

that occur within the action area, involve only minor changes to the project, and reduce the

level of take associated with project activities. These measures should minimize the impacts

of incidental take to the extent reasonable and prudent. For example, a measure may call for

actions like education of employees about the species, reduction of predation, removal or

avoidance of the species, or monitoring. Measures are considered reasonable and prudent

when they are consistent with the proposed action's basic design (e.g., narrowing of disturbed

right-of-way at known species locations), location (e.g., temporary storage of equipment or

other materials), scope, duration, and timing. The test for reasonableness is whether the

proposed measure would cause more than a minor change to the project.

Reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions should be developed in

coordination with the action agency and applicant, if any, to ensure that the measures are

reasonable, that they cause only minor changes to the project, and that they are within the

legal authority and jurisdiction of the agency or applicant to carry out. For example, the effect

of measures costing $10,000 or $100,000 may be critically significant for a single family boat

dock, but minor for a multi-million dollar development complex. An example of an

unreasonable measure would be a timing delay to minimize the impacts of incidental take if

project timing is critical.

Reasonable and prudent measures serve to minimize impacts on the specific individuals or

habitats affected by the action. Activities resulting from these measures must occur within the

action area, which may be larger than the footprint of the project itself (see description of

action area in section 4.5(A)).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 135 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-54

Reasonable and prudent measures are not a substitute for a finding of jeopardy or adverse

modification. Similarly, discretionary conservation recommendations under section 7(a)(1)

are not a substitute for reasonable and prudent measures as a means of minimizing the impacts

of incidental take.

Standardized introductory paragraph for reasonable and prudent measures for species other

than marine mammals and migratory birds:

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure(s) are

necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of (species): [Go

on to list these measures and provide a brief discussion documenting the Service's

analysis of the biological need for, and reasonableness of, these measures.]

Terms and conditions

The terms and conditions set out the specific methods by which the reasonable and prudent

measures are to be accomplished, e.g., who is to be educated, when/what/how; the actions

necessary to reduce predation; who may remove or how to avoid the species; or the protocol

for monitoring. Terms and conditions of an incidental take statement must include reporting

and monitoring requirements that assure adequate action agency oversight of any incidental

take [50 CFR §402.14(i)(1)(iv) and (i)(3)]. The monitoring must be sufficient to determine if

the amount or extent of take is approached or exceeded, and the reporting must assure that

the Services will know when that happens.

The incidental take statement should include a discussion on the "disposition of individuals

taken" that distinguishes between injured and killed animals, and tells the action agency (1)

what needs to be done with sick or injured animals to assure adequate care; (2) how to

preserve dead animals to determine the cause of death, if not known; (3) the procedures for

disposing of the animal, including shipping preserved animals to research facilities; and (4) to

notify the nearest Service Law Enforcement Office when a listed species is taken.

Care should be exercised in developing the incidental take statement and its terms and

conditions. Consider: (1) any incidental take anticipated must not be likely to result in

jeopardy or adverse modification; (2) the action agency must provide for monitoring the

actual number of individuals taken; (3) review requirements need to determine when the

reasonable and prudent measures are not reducing the effect to the extent anticipated; and (4)

if the anticipated level of incidental take is exceeded, the action agency must immediately stop

the action causing the taking and reinitiate formal consultation.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 136 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-55

Standardized introductory paragraph for terms and conditions:

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the (agency)

must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the

reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required

reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary.

[Go on to list these terms and conditions, including the requirements for monitoring,

reporting, review, [see 50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(iv) and (i)(3)] and disposition of any

specimens [see 50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(v).] 

Salvage of species and habitat data included as a term and condition: Where practical,

an attempt should be made to salvage specimens or habitat data from areas to be destroyed as

a direct or indirect result of the action. For example, when the Services determine that

research would be beneficial to the species (generally identified by a recovery plan or recovery

outline), and a willing researcher has a permit for that research, the terms and conditions could

call for reasonable allowance to collect biological data on specimens that would be killed, or

information on species' habitat (e.g., the construction, depth, moisture characteristics of

underground burrows). "Reasonable" is to be defined in each case as appropriate to the

action, and should not significantly delay legitimate project activities. For example, if the

action is time sensitive, such as bulldozing a firebreak during a fire, there is likely to be

insufficient time to collect specimens. However, should a long-term project be proposed,

such as development of a housing project, more extensive opportunities for collection may

exist.

Salvaging live specimens may minimize the net adverse effects of an action by providing

individuals for captive breeding or approved translocation. If dead specimens can be

collected, valuable data may still be obtained, possibly providing research material in lieu of

the need to collect additional specimens.

Terms and conditions for salvage efforts are explicitly described in the incidental take

statement to fully inform the action agency and/or the applicant of how they are to comply

with that statement. Information is to be provided as to who will do the salvage, where,

when, techniques to be employed, the fate of specimens and data collected, the possible need

for Federal and/or State permits or other documentation to conduct the salvage operation or

transfer the specimens, or guidelines on who to contact for changes in the protocol.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 137 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-56

The impact of incidental take is to be minimized by the reasonable and prudent measures and

implementing terms and conditions. In many cases, the implementation of the terms and

conditions may lead to a reduction in the anticipated level of incidental take. However, the

incidental take statement quantifies the amount of take anticipated based on implementation of

the proposed action before implementation of the terms and conditions. To ensure that the

measures are working as anticipated, a review requirement is included in the closing paragraph

as follows:

Closing Paragraph

The Service believes that no more than (number or extent) of (species) will be

incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable and prudent

measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize

the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. 

If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such

incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation

and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency

must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review

with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent

measures.

If, after receipt of a Final Biological Opinion, an action agency declines to take the reasonable

and prudent measures and their implementing terms and conditions or to make them

conditions of the license or permit, the Services document this fact(s) and state in writing that

any anticipated taking would be prohibited by section 9, unless a permit is granted under

section 10 of the Act. The Services should follow up with the action agency to determine if

the terms and conditions have been implemented.

Coordination of incidental take statements with other laws, regulations, and policies

Section 10 permits

Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits (Research and Education)

Determining whether a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is needed in addition to the incidental take

statement depends on the proposed action. When intentional take is described as part of the

proposal in order to minimize anticipated incidental take, the biological opinion and incidental

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 138 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-57

take statement serve as the authority for that take. Example: "Take" of desert tortoises

where a highway is to be constructed. Animals captured as part of the proposed action could

be put in research or captive propagation projects. Since this intentional “take” would be a

requirement of the proposed action to minimize the anticipated impact to the species, this

action would not require a separate section 10 permit. However, if the terms and conditions

require future take for research purposes, a separate section 10 permit is required. Example: 

If the biological opinion for the highway construction requires the agency to capture

additional tortoises for study at a later date, a section 10 permit would be required.

Section 10 permits are not required for:

o activities carried out under an approved cooperative section 6 agreement as long as any

taking of an endangered species is not reasonably anticipated to result in (1) the death or

permanent disabling of the specimen; (2) the removal of the specimen from the State

where the taking occurred; (3) the introduction of the specimen so taken, or any progeny

derived from such specimen, into an area beyond the historical range of the species; or

(4) the holding of the specimen in captivity for a period of more than 45 consecutive

days. (50 CFR §17.21(c)(5))

o take activities directed by the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement in

accordance with section 7(o)(2).

When incidental take involves an applicant or licensee, the permitting Federal agency should

be directed to provide a copy of the incidental take statement to the applicant/licensee, or to

include the language of the terms and conditions in the permit itself if they are to be

implemented by the applicant. The applicant/licensee then has a document in their possession

at anytime they are involved in an action that may result in take.

Terms and conditions covering research or other "enhancement" activities detail the

conditions of the research or require a subsequent Service and/or State review and approval of

the research plan. See the FWS Handbook for Endangered and Threatened Species Permits

for conditions included in section 10 permits.

Safe Harbor Agreements

The Act's "take" prohibitions may have, inadvertently, created some disincentives for nonFederal landowners to manage their lands for the benefit of listed species. To address this

issue, the Services are seeking ways to encourage an "endangered species friendly" approach

to non-Federal lands management through the creation of incentives or by removing

conservation disincentives. One such approach is the "Safe Harbor" concept. This program

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 139 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-58

protects landowners from the Act's restrictions when they cooperate with the Services to

benefit listed species on their lands. A proposed policy and rule for the implementation of the

Safe Harbor concept was published jointly by FWS and NMFS in the Federal Register on June

12, 1997 [62 FR 113, 32178-32183 and 32189-32194]. Some information contained in this

section may be outdated upon publication of the final policy and regulations. Users of this

handbook should check the final policy and regulations for further guidance.

"Safe Harbor" agreements are currently developed through existing Act provisions under

section 10(a)(1)(B). Under these agreements non-Federal landowners are encouraged to

maintain or enhance existing endangered species habitat, to restore listed species habitats, or

to manage their lands in a manner that benefits listed species. In return, the Services provide

assurances that future activities would not be subject to restrictions above those applicable to

the property at the time of enrollment into the program. As a result, any endangered species

occupying a landowner's property at the time of enrollment in the program would remain

protected (baseline). Thus, to implement the "Safe Harbor" program, the Services must

authorize incidental take of all listed species on an enrolled property in excess of those lands

or animals that were already protected at the time of signing the agreement. Once the

proposed policy and regulations are final, these arrangements will be formalized through an

enhancement of survival permit (section 10(a)(1)(A)) and an agreement or similar instrument

between the landowner and the Services, and would be subject to intra-Service section 7

consultation.

In essence, future incidental taking of non-baseline animals and habitat would be authorized. 

While not totally risk free, the Services believe this approach will provide positive

conservation benefits. The animals and habitat that would be taken under the program would

not have existed but for the program and without the programs' incentives, landowners may

continue to actively exclude listed species in land management activities. This approach will

help reduce habitat fragmentation, increase population numbers and serve as a way to field

test innovative management techniques. Some of these gains will be reversed when

landowners choose to return to baseline conditions, but the Services believe that the gains will

outweigh the reversals. This approach is expected to help diminish the fear and distrust that

many non-Federal landowners have toward listed species and the Act.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits (Conservation Plans) 

Permits for incidental take under section 10(a)(1)(B) require a FWS or NMFS intra-Service

consultation. These consultations are conducted in the same manner as outlined in this

chapter except that the incidental take statement is governed by section 10(a)(1)(B) to the

extent that mitigation, including off-site compensation not directed at the affected individuals,

may be considered. Specific procedures for FWS intra-Service consultation are outlined in

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 140 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-59

Appendix E of this handbook. The intra-Service consultation should be done concurrently

during development of the Habitat Conservation Plan, and finalized once the HCP has been

officially submitted. The Services have developed a handbook for Habitat Conservation

Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing (November 1996), which should be

referenced for further information.

In some cases, Federal agencies besides the Services may be integrally involved in HCP

efforts. In these cases, the action to be conducted by the Federal agency during the

implementation of the HCP should be included as an additional element to be consulted on

through the section 7 consultation conducted for the issuance of a permit. This allows the

Services to conduct one formal consultation that incorporates the actions for the HCP and any

related and supportive Federal actions into one biological opinion. The biological opinion

developed for the HCP should also incorporate the necessary biological analysis on the

Federal action as well as the actions in the HCP to help eliminate duplication. Thus, the single

biological opinion issued by the Services would address both the Federal action and the nonFederal action, and it would include an incidental take statement that authorizes any incidental

take by the Federal agency and an incidental take permit that authorizes any incidental take by

the section 10 permittee. Also, the incidental take statement in a section 7 biological opinion

does not provide a "No Surprises assurances" guarantee. The action agency is responsible for

reinitiating consultation should their actions result in exceeding the level of incidental take. 

The incidental take statement for any section 10(a)(1)(B) permit application includes the

following standardized language which would replace the second paragraph in the

standardized introductory paragraph language given on page 4-46. Appropriate changes may

be made in the wording of the following paragraphs when consulting on any subsequent

amendments to the permit.

The proposed (name)] HCP and its associated documents clearly identify

anticipated impacts to affected species likely to result from the proposed taking

and the measures that are necessary and appropriate to minimize those impacts. 

All conservation measures described in the proposed HCP, together with the terms

and conditions described in any associated Implementing Agreement and any

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit or permits issued with respect to the proposed HCP, are

hereby incorporated by reference as reasonable and prudent measures and terms

and conditions within this Incidental Take Statement pursuant to 50 CFR

§402.14(i). Such terms and conditions are non-discretionary and must be

undertaken for the exemptions under section 10(a)(1)(B) and section 7(o)(2) of the

Act to apply. If the permittee fails to adhere to these terms and conditions, the

protective coverage of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and section 7(o)(2) may lapse. 

The amount or extent of incidental take anticipated under the proposed (name)

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 141 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-60

HCP, associated reporting requirements, and provisions for disposition of dead or

injured animals are as described in the HCP and its accompanying section

10(a)(1)(B) permit(s).

Migratory birds including bald eagles

Some migratory birds (e.g., golden-cheeked warbler and the bald eagle) are also listed as

either threatened or endangered species. Incidental take for these species can be granted

under the Act, but neither the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) nor the Bald and Golden

Eagle Protection Act (BEPA) have explicit provisions that address incidental take.

This situation has now been clarified via a February 9, 1996, Director’s memo (see Appendix

D, SO-6). FWS may use its powers of prosecutorial discretion to determine that if incidental

take of listed migratory birds, including the bald eagle, occurs, and if the requirements of the

consultation have been met, the FWS would choose not to prosecute the incidental take under

the MBTA or the BEPA. Any appropriate actions to minimize incidental take of threatened

or endangered migratory birds or bald eagles may be addressed in the incidental take

statement provided with the biological opinion.

Again, only incidental take of migratory birds listed as threatened or endangered under the

Act, including bald eagles, may be addressed in the following language. Include, when

appropriate, the following language into any section 7 incidental take statement concluding

that take of listed migratory birds (including the bald eagle) will result from the actions under

consultation:

The Fish and Wildlife Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory

bird or bald eagle for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as

amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of

1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d), if such take is in compliance with the

terms and conditions (including amount and/or number) specified herein.

Marine mammals

The incidental take of listed marine mammals must meet the requirements of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as well as the Act. NMFS has responsibility for listed

species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions; FWS has responsibility for the southern sea

otter and manatee. Framework regulations at 50 CFR §18.27 and Parts 216 and 229 

establish standards and a process for determining whether an exception exists for incidental

taking of small numbers of marine mammals related to a specific activity in a specific

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 142 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-61

geographic region. After a set of area-specific regulations are promulgated for a particular

area or activity, letters of authorization are issued annually by the NMFS or the FWS,

depending on the species involved, to each person wishing to conduct an activity that may

result in incidental take.

In addition, the MMPA amendments of 1994 authorize incidental take of marine mammals in

the form of "harassment" authorizations for non-commercial fishing activities, and permits for

incidental take for commercial fishing activities under certain circumstances. NMFS has

published regulations implementing the 1994 MMPA amendments. [61 FR 45086 (August

30, 1995) and 61 FR 15884 (April 10, 1996)] The August 1995 regulations concern the

taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. The April 1996

regulations clarify the existing regulations for obtaining a small, incidental take authorization

for other activities. Consistent with the Act and regulations at 50 CFR §402.14(i) (Appendix

A), incidental take statements for marine mammals are not included in formal consultations

until regulations, authorizations, or permits under MMPA 101(a)(5) are in effect.

Standard paragraph for incidental take of marine mammals: [If the incidental take is not

authorized under MMPA 101(a)(5):]

The Service is not including an incidental take authorization for marine mammals

at this time because the incidental take of marine mammals has not been

authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or

its 1994 Amendments. Following issuance of such regulations or authorizations,

the Service may amend this biological opinion to include an incidental take

statement for marine mammals, as appropriate.

After area-specific or activity-specific regulations have taken effect:

Pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended

in 1994, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR §18.27, and 50 CFR §216 and

§229, the following measures are required to be consistent with the total taking

allowable under the MMPA authorization and to effect the least practical adverse

impact on the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for

subsistence uses: [Cite measures identified in specific regulations and/or letters of

authorization or permits for commercial fishing]. Pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the

Endangered Species Act, the following reasonable and prudent measures are

necessary and appropriate to minimize take: [Go on to list the measures, followed by

the standard paragraph for terms and conditions.]

(C) Conference Report/Conference Notice

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 143 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-62

In addition to determining whether an action is likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or

adversely modify designated critical habitat, the Services also may assist action agencies in

making such a preliminary determination for proposed species or proposed critical habitats. 

The final determination of likely jeopardy or adverse modification to such proposed species

or critical habitats remains with the Services. When the Services make a preliminary

determination that a proposed agency action presents the likelihood of jeopardy to proposed

species or adverse modification to proposed critical habitat, the action agency should be

advised in writing. A determination should be made as to whether the agency wants the

proposed species/critical habitat included in the formal consultation.

If the agency does not want proposed species/critical habitat considered, notice of the need to

confer (or, if the action agency requests an informal conference, the conference report) is

included in the consultation package following the incidental take statement. A finding of

"likely to jeopardize" is not required to trigger the conference procedure if the action agency

wishes to initiate a review of possible effects on a proposed species or critical habitat. The

Services will confer when an agency requests such a conference based on their determination

that the proposed action may affect a proposed species or critical habitat.

When an action agency requests formal conference for an action that also affects listed

species, the analyses of effects may be included in the body of the biological opinion. 

However, an incidental take statement for proposed species is separated from that for listed

species, and contains the standardized language provided in Chapter 6.

(D) Conservation Recommendations

"(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such

programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall,

in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities

in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the

conservation of endangered species and threatened species. . . ."

 Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act

When the Services identify discretionary actions the action agency can implement, relevant to

the proposed action and consistent with their section 7(a)(1) authority, voluntary conservation

recommendations may be included as a separate item in the consultation package. 

Conservation recommendations serve several purposes. They can suggest how an action

agency can assist species conservation in furtherance of their responsibilities under section

7(a)(1) of the Act. They may further minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a proposed

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 144 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-63

action on listed species or critical habitat - in which case they are applied after the terms and

conditions of the incidental take statement are implemented. They may also suggest ways to

minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a proposed action on proposed or candidate species. 

They can recommend studies improving an understanding of a species' biology or ecology. 

Wherever possible, these actions should be tied to tasks identified in recovery plans.

Conservation recommendations may be provided separately or at the end of the consultation

package, but they are not incorporated anywhere in the biological opinion or incidental take

statement where they may be confused with the opinion or statement itself. These

recommendations are never a precondition for a subsequent finding of no jeopardy or to

reduce the impacts of anticipated incidental take.

Standardized paragraphs for conservation recommendations:

Introductory paragraph:

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to

further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the

benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are

discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed

action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to

develop information.

Closing paragraph:

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding

adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests

notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

(E) Reinitiation Notice

Section 7 regulations outline four general conditions for reinitiating formal consultation: (1)

the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the

action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not

previously considered; (3) the action is modified in a manner causing effects to listed species

or critical habitat not previously considered; (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat

designated that may be affected by the action.

In this section, the Services should identify situations, if any, that meet one or all of these four

conditions. For example, the Services may identify studies in progress whose results may

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 145 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-64

cause a reassessment of the biological opinion, or proposed listings or critical habitat

designations.

Federal action agencies should be informed of the advisability of maintaining a Federal nexus

for the project so that consultation can be reinitiated, if necessary. This is usually done by

making the terms of the biological opinion a condition of the license, permit, or other

authorization that is issued for project approval.

The standard closing statement of the formal consultation package is as follows:

This concludes formal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the

(request/reinitiation request). As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of

formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or

control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects

of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or

to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently

modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat

not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat

designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or

extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease

pending reinitiation.

(F) Literature Cited

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires biological opinions to be based on "the best scientific and

commercial data available." This section of the opinion identifies the scientific and

commercial data used in development of the biological opinion.

4.6 PROCEDURES FOR MODIFYING BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS AND

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENTS

When the action agency determines that one or more of the four conditions requiring

reinitiation of formal consultation has occurred, consultation must be reinitiated. Similarly, if

the Services recognize that any of these conditions have occurred, written advice is provided

to the action agency of the need to reinitiate consultation.

Documentation of a reinitiated consultation must be in writing, and must contain sufficient

information to record the nature of the change in the action's effects and the rationale for

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 146 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-65

amending analyses of anticipated incidental take or the reasonable and prudent alternatives or

measures (Exhibit 4-4).

Reinitiations involving major changes in effects analyses or changes in the Services' biological

opinion are addressed fully in a new consultation. A reinitiation based on a new species listing

or critical habitat designation is treated as a new consultation, although data in the original

opinion may be referenced when the action has not changed.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 147 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-66

Exhibit 4-4. Example of modification of an incidental take statement.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT

RENO FIELD STATION

4600 Kietzke Lane, Building C-125

Reno, Nevada 89502-5093

 February 7, 1991

 File No.: 1-5-90-F-25

Memorandum

To: District Manager, Las Vegas District, U. S. Bureau of Land

Management, Las Vegas, Nevada

From: Field Supervisor, Reno Field Station, U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Reno, Nevada

Subject: Clark County Regional Flood Control District's Proposed 10-Year Plan for Flood

Control Facilities: Amendment to Opinion

This letter constitutes an amendment to the August 29, 1990, Biological Opinion on the Clark

County Regional Flood Control District's (District’s) 10-Year Plan (File No: 1-5-90-F-25). 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received verbal communication from

_____(name)____ of the Bureau of Land Management’s Las Vegas District office on January

10, 1991, and copies of correspondence to your agency from the District dated November 26,

1990, and January 3, 1991, regarding changes in the design of the Upper Las Vegas Wash

Detention Basin (Facility N3-8). In addition, that portion of the floodway (N3-1) extending

north of the detention basin is proposed to be eliminated. ____(name)____ requested our

determination of whether additional surveys would be required, and whether formal

consultation with the Service should be reinitiated. 

Our review of the alternative proposal indicates that the overall size of the new detention

basin will be 5 acres less than that of the original facility. Furthermore, the area to be

disturbed by the new proposed dike, located in the same general area as the floodway, is less

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 148 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-67

than that of the portion of the floodway that will be eliminated by the alternative design. 

Therefore it is likely that the level of incidental take that would occur from construction of

N3-8 Alt. would not exceed that which would occur from the original proposal.

Accordingly, the following condition is substituted for Condition l.e. of the Biological Opinion

issued to your agency on August 29, 1990. The change from the original condition is

underlined.

l.e. Temporary tortoise proof fencing shall be erected around each of the following facilities

prior to beginning construction activities: N3-8 Alt ; N4-8; N5-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; N10-9, 10, 11;

N12-9, 10, 11; Cl-45; C2-46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53; Sl-59; S2-81; S4-23, 24; S20-17; S21-28,

29; S22-25; 4109-28. A qualified biologist shall supervise the erection of the fence. All

tortoise burrows and other burrows and dens that could be occupied by tortoises within the

fence construction zone shall be excavated by hand. All tortoises, including any eggs found,

shall be removed from the fence construction zone according to the protocol provided in

Appendix C prior to brush removal, grading, and fence installation.

If you have any questions, please contact ___(name)_____ of this office at ____(phone)____.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 149 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-68

4.7 HANDLING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS

National security classified documents used during consultation require specialized handling.

o Only personnel trained and qualified to handle such documents may do so. Security

clearances are regularly checked to determine if they are still current.

o If classified information is included in the biological opinion, that portion of the

document is covered by a derivative classification (and must be marked and

protected accordingly), and can be reviewed only by appropriate personnel with the

required security clearance who have a need to know.

o All classified documents are to be maintained in files secured for their level of

security. See Departmental regulations for handling of such files.

o Classified information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA).

When classified documents or information will be required for a consultation, FWS personnel

should check with the FWS Regional Office and the Department of the Interior's Security

Office in Washington, DC, for current procedures and names of personnel with appropriate

security clearances who are authorized to review the classified information. Similarly, NMFS

personnel should contact the Endangered Species Division at Headquarters to determine the

appropriate security procedures and contacts.

4.8 PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

During the course of consultations, some of the information received or gathered may contain

trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is prohibited from release by

Federal statute. Further, under FOIA, information may be exempt from disclosure if its

release would cause competitive harm to the submitter, would impair the Government's ability

to gather necessary information in the future, or would interfere with compliance or program

effectiveness. If confidential information was provided to the Services by the action agency,

outside requests for access to, or copies of, the information generally should be referred to the

agency that collected the information for a determination concerning release (made under 43

CFR §2.15(c)). If the Services obtained the information directly from the businesses or

organizations (including sole proprietorships), the Services will generally need to make a

determination concerning release in accordance with the FOIA (Part 203 of the Fish and

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 150 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4-69

Wildlife Manual). Contact your Regional FOIA Coordinator or the Services' FOIA Officer

for assistance in processing such requests.

4.9 DISTRIBUTION OF FINAL FORMAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

Upon completion, the formal consultation package is provided promptly to the action agency

and the applicant, if any. The action agency then provides copies to other interested parties. 

For example, EPA is responsible for distributing pesticide consultation documents. However,

if the action agency refuses to provide copies, the Services will provide copies upon request

after sufficient time (10 working days) has passed to ensure that the action agency has

received the consultation document. The Services will inform the action agency that they are

responding to the request.

Exceptions to this waiting period include providing copies simultaneously to appropriate State

and tribal agencies when they are involved in the consultation or implementation of terms of

the biological opinion. 

Consultations containing classified material or confidential business information follow

procedures laid out in 4.7 and 4. 8 above.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 151 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-1

CHAPTER 5 - SPECIAL CONSULTATIONS AND REVIEWS

The following procedures facilitate section 7 compliance for complex programs or specialized

situations.

5.1 PROACTIVE CONSERVATION REVIEWS - Section 7(a)(1)

The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such

programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall,

in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities

in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the

conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4

of this Act. 

 Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act

Implementation of section 7(a)(1) needs to be closely coordinated with the section 7(a)(2)

consultation program. FWS offices and other agencies have recognized the need for, but have

yet to request, such a review of major national programs.

This type of programmatic review is also appropriate for Federal agency planning and

program management documents (e.g. BLM Resource Area Management Plans, Forest

Timber Program Planning Documents). Often in these cases there is not enough specific

information about on-the-ground impacts to determine if there would be an adverse effect

from a specific project and what the amount of incidental take might be. By identifying

potential program effects and developing guidelines to minimize these effects to listed species

and designated critical habitats, subsequent "stepped-down" consultations, where more

specific effects on species can be determined within the context of a local geographical area,

can be done more expediently (see also section 5.4 regarding Streamlined Consultations).

Ultimately, these conservation reviews should provide the agency with concurrence on, or

recommendations for, a blueprint for conservation activities including section 7(a)(2)

consultation, section 10 permits, assistance in developing and implementing recovery plans,

and assistance in candidate monitoring and management programs. Initial efforts will address

the consultation component, and examples will be provided as they become available. For the

time being, such conservation reviews are confined to national programs (plans, regulations)

and will be conducted or coordinated by the Washington Office of both Services.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 152 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-2

5.2 NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS - Section 7(a)(2)

Increasingly, the Services are requested to consult on an action or series of actions affecting

many species over all or a major portion of the country. Examples have included: the U.S.

Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal

Damage Control program addressing most of that office's activities nationwide; and the

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pesticide registration program. Within the FWS,

these consultations have been addressed by one or more teams from the Regions, with the

lead assigned to one Region or the Washington Office. National consultation documents will

be signed in the FWS Washington Office. Within the NMFS, these consultation documents

are addressed and signed in the Washington Office of Protected Resources.

These consultations differ from "conservation reviews" (see (A) above) in that (1) specific

species affected by the action can be identified; (2) specific actions affecting these species can

be described; (3) the effects of the action on the species can be determined during

consultation; and (4) the consultation fulfills an agency's obligation under section 7(a)(2). If a

federal action affects both NMFS and FWS species, it is appropriate to conduct a joint

consultation and issue a joint opinion (see Appendix C for an example of a joint consultation). 

Joint consultation documents should be addressed and signed at the Washington Office level

of both Services.

Successful conduct of these consultations requires the Regions to provide strong support to

the development of these opinions, including funding and staff time to complete assigned

portions of the work, and the Washington Office to designate a liaison to facilitate the

consultation.

Program-specific protocols have been developed for recurring national consultations, like

EPA's pesticide registration program.

(A) Pesticide consultations (FWS)

As the action agency responsible for most pesticide registrations, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency is usually the agency that requests consultation on these activities. 

Occasionally, other agencies (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration) may also request

consultation on chemicals with pesticidal effects under their jurisdiction for review of their

effects on listed species. These consultations review the potential effects of all registered uses

of pesticides on listed species. EPA has combined several pesticides into a single request. 

Occasionally, EPA may request case-by-case consultation on a specific pesticide when

conditions warrant.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 153 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-3

This section describes general procedures the FWS follows while reviewing Environmental

Protection Agency's registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act. This guidance is intended to facilitate the efficient and effective completion

of these consultations and improve coordination among the FWS's Field, Regional, and

Washington offices. This guidance will facilitate the evaluation of potential impacts to

Federally listed species from the use of pesticides.

Registration of pesticides is an action with potentially broad geographical effects perhaps

making these consultations the most complex type of consultation the FWS deals with under

section 7. Because of their technical complexity the FWS has utilized National teams to

conduct these consultations.

The current FWS national pesticide consultation team consists of (1) a team leader from the

Division of Endangered Species in the Washington Office (DTE), (2) at least one biologist

from each of Regions 1-6, and (3) a subteam of both Regional and Field Office Environmental

Contaminants staff, as necessary, led by a biologist from the Division of Environmental

Contaminants in the Washington Office (DEC).

The team leader is responsible for initial contacts and coordination with EPA in preparing

their initiation package. Upon receipt of the initiation package, the team leader will promptly

distribute copies to all team members and request technical review from the DEC technical

subteam. Concurrently the team leader will notify EPA of receipt of their initiation package

and will provide EPA with a timeline for completion of the FWS's evaluation of the package. 

If the FWS's review cannot be completed within the expected timeframe it is the responsibility

of the team leader to request an extension from EPA. This review of the initiation package

could have one of two outcomes. First the FWS may accept the package as adequate to

formulate the necessary biological opinions, in which case the team leader will notify EPA, in

writing, acknowledging initiation of formal consultation and providing an expected timeframe

for completion of the biological opinion. Another possible outcome of this review could be

the determination by the FWS that the initiation package does not provide adequate

information for the FWS to develop a biological opinion. In such a case the team leader will

provide EPA, in writing, with a rationale for the FWS's determination and also clear guidance

on how EPA should supplement its initiation package to be satisfactory for the development

of the necessary biological opinions.

Section 7 regulations allow 90 days to conduct formal consultation and an additional 45 days

to complete the biological opinion, for a total of 135 days from receipt of the initiation request

to delivery of the biological opinion. Given the workload involved in conducting pesticide

consultations, these consultations generally cannot be completed within the regulatory

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 154 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-4

timeframe. DTE negotiates an acceptable timeframe for completing national pesticide

consultations and requests extensions, as necessary, based on recommendations from team

members.

When initiation is acknowledged, DTE's responsibility as team leader is to ensure that all team

members have access to all necessary and pertinent information, coordinate all team meetings

and workshops, and facilitate information exchange among team members, DEC, and EPA. 

Each team member is responsible for evaluating all listed and proposed species and designated

or proposed critical habitats for which their Region has the lead. Each team member will

develop the necessary biological opinions and submit them to the team leader for

incorporation into a draft biological opinion. Once a draft opinion is developed it will be

provided to DEC for their review. DEC's role at this stage of the consultation is to review the

draft opinion for technical accuracy and comment on the technical feasibility of the reasonable

and prudent alternatives or measures or both. Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, it

will be provided to EPA for EPA's review and comment.

As soon as the team leader receives EPA's comments on the draft opinion, the team leader will

transmit such comments to all team members and to DEC's technical subteam for their review

and consideration. DEC's role at this stage would be to aid the team in evaluating EPA's

comments on the draft opinion and suggesting courses of action to address EPA's comments. 

DTE's role at this stage is to facilitate the dialogue among DEC, National team members, and

EPA on how to best address EPA's comments and develop the final opinion with

implementable reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures. Each team member is

responsible for editing or amending, as necessary, the portions of the opinion they developed. 

After all the team members have completed the necessary amendments to the opinion, they

submit their work to the team leader for final review by both DEC and DTE prior to signature

and transmittal to EPA.

Future EPA or other agency pesticide consultations will probably follow this general format. 

However, modifications will be made, as necessary, to continually improve the process and

accommodate any special circumstances, if warranted.

(B) Other national consultations

Several other programs will probably generate national consultation requests. For example,

State and tribal programs to assume administration of section 404 of the Clean Water Act may

require development of specific national consultation procedures.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 155 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-5

5.3 REGIONAL OR ECOSYSTEM CONSULTATIONS

Action agencies occasionally request multi-action and "ecosystem-based" consultations. 

These consultations may be step-downs of conservation reviews or national consultations. 

For FWS, a lead Region or field office may be designated. Regional and ecosystem biological

opinions may be signed at the FWS Regional or Field Office level, as appropriate. For NMFS,

these consultations are addressed by a lead Region for the Office of Protected Resources, and

signed by the Washington Office Director, Protected Resources, except where signature has

been delegated to a specific Region. Examples of these consultations include:

Regional:

o U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) program to eradicate the boll weevil in southern cotton growing states, to

control grasshoppers and crickets in western states, or to control Mediterranean

fruit flies in the Southwest.

Ecosystem:

o An FWS Region 6-led consultation on the continuing operations of all Corps dams

on the Missouri River and their effects on listed species within that aquatic

ecosystem (bald eagle, piping plovers, interior least terns and the pallid sturgeon).

o An FWS Region 3 consultation on operation of Corps facilities along the breadth of

the Upper Mississippi River.

o An FWS Region 2-led consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation on regulations

to implement water entitlements on the Lower Colorado River.

o An FWS Region 1-led consultation with the BLM on grazing activities throughout

the range of the desert tortoise, and other program activities within the proposed

critical habitat.

Consideration should be given to conducting ecosystem-based consultations, particularly in

areas undergoing large HCPs, with the Federal agencies whose future activities may affect one

or more species within a regional planning area. This type of consultation would involve

programmatic review of the agencies' activities and would be most effective if conducted

simultaneously with development of the HCP. Such an approach could involve a single lead

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 156 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-6

agency, if there is a predominant Federal agency influence (e.g., the Bureau of Reclamation in

the Central Valley of California), or could involve a limited number of agencies representing

Federal programs in the planning area. Such simultaneous consideration of both Federal and

non-Federal programs could (1) assist in assessing overall effects on a species/group of

species/ ecosystem from multiple actions; (2) result in a better determination of the respective

roles of all the parties in conserving the species/ecosystem, (3) assist in determining the

priority of all proposed actions for use of any "resource cushion" that may exist, and (4)

demonstrate that all parties are being provided equal consideration at equal speed

(programmatic consultations do not have applicants and are subject to mutually agreed

timeframes).

5.4 STREAMLINED CONSULTATIONS

(A) Activities in the Pacific Northwest

In March of 1995, FWS, NMFS, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management

released a jointly-developed consultation timeline and streamlining process for accomplishing

forest health projects and salvage timber harvest in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California. In February of 1997 a revised Streamlining Procedures Consultation Guidance

was released (See Appendix A for copies of the agreement and the Guidance document). 

The process utilizes interagency teams to work together in the early stages of project

planning, and to complete consultation on projects within the timeframes needed to meet the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The process provides for

consultation to occur simultaneously with project planning and development under NEPA by

the action agency. Informal consultations are to be completed within 30 days, and formal

consultations within 60 days of submission of an agreed-upon biological assessment. On May

31, 1995, the process was expanded to apply to all consultation efforts in the Pacific

Northwest, with the exception that on BLM lands the streamlined consultation process will

only apply to consultations involving forest ecosystem activities. During the period from

August 30, 1995, to August 30 1996, informal consultations done under this program were

completed in an average of 17 days (162 consultations), while formal consultations averaged

46.5 days (50 consultations).

(B) Interagency Streamlined Consultation MOA

An MOA, which is currently being developed jointly by the FWS, NMFS, Bureau of Land

Management, and the Forest Service will establish a framework for cooperation in the

conductance of section 7 consultation on land management plans, amendments, and programs

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 157 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-7

that BLM and FS implement. The MOA is being developed in response to the need for BLM

and FS to update these plans in a timely manner when new species become listed or critical

habitat is designated. Early and effective interagency cooperation is critical in meeting this

need.

The MOA will confirm that the BLM and FS agree to consult on the effects that

implementation of land management plans or other programmatic documents have on listed

species or designated critical habitat, to conference on proposed species or proposed critical

habitat, and to include an analysis of the effects of the plan on candidate species in a

Biological Assessment/ Evaluation. The signatory agencies will agree to maintain and

exchange information on species biology and planning schedules and priorities on a regular

basis. A document providing guidance on the process for implementing streamlined

consultations on land use plans and programs will be finalized and implemented when the

MOA is put in place. The MOA will be signed soon. Once signed, the MOA will be

considered an addendum to this handbook as Appendix H.

5.5 INCREMENTAL STEP CONSULTATIONS

When a statute authorizes an agency to complete an action in incremental steps, the Services

shall, at the request of the action agency, issue a biological opinion on the incremental step

being considered. That opinion also includes the Services' views on the entire action (50 CFR

§402.14(k)). An action agency may proceed with each proposed incremental step after

consultation, when:

o the biological opinion concludes that the incremental step does not violate section

7(a)(2) of the Act;

o the action agency continues consultation with respect to the entire action, and

obtains biological opinions, as required, for each incremental step;

o the action agency fulfills its continuing obligation to obtain sufficient data upon

which to base the final biological opinion on the entire action;

o the incremental step does not violate section 7(d) of the Act concerning irreversible

or irretrievable commitment of resources; and 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 158 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-8

o there is a reasonable likelihood that the entire action will not violate section 7(a)(2)

of the Act.

Consultation for the first phase of an incremental step action must be conducted formally to

address these five factors. If no adverse effect is likely for subsequent intermediate steps,

consultation may be conducted informally for such steps. An example of an incremental step

consultation can be found in Appendix C.

Incremental step consultation is most appropriate for long-term, multi-staged activities for

which agency actions occur in discrete steps, such as the development of oil and gas resources

on the Outer Continental Shelf. However, in Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.

1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1121 (1989), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disallowed the

incremental step consultation approach for onshore oil and gas leasing and made clear the

burden it expects action agencies to carry:

In light of the ESA requirement that the agencies use the best scientific and commercial

data available to insure that protected species are not jeopardized, 16 U.S.C.

§1536(a)(2), the FWS cannot ignore available biological information or fail to develop

projections of oil and gas activities which may indicate potential conflicts between

development and the preservation of protected species. We hold that the FWS violated

the ESA by failing to use the best information available to prepare comprehensive

biological opinions considering all stages of the agency action, and thus failing to

adequately assess whether the agency action was likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any threatened or endangered species, as required by section 7(a)(2). To

hold otherwise would eviscerate Congress' intent to "give the benefit of the doubt to the

species."

Connor v. Burford

848 F.2d at 1454 (footnote omitted).

The Services should follow the ruling in Conner on all consultations for proposed on-shore oil

and gas leases and other activities on Federal lands located within the following Ninth Circuit

States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and

Washington.

The question has been raised about whether this approach is inconsistent with the consultation

regulations. The Conner court stated that Service regulations on section 7 consultation limit

the incremental step consultation process to activities that are statutorily segmented. See 848

F.2d at 1457 n.38. Under 50 CFR §402.14(k), an opportunity for incremental review exists

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 159 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-9

when an activity is "authorized by a statute that allows the agency to take incremental steps

toward the completion of the action." The Department of the Interior believes the incremental

steps need not be statutorily-mandated to meet the requirements of section 402.14(k), and has

long held that the Mineral Leasing Act allows the use of a segmented decisionmaking process. 

Therefore, Service regulations do not prevent evaluating on-shore mineral leasing activities

through incremental-step consultation. This disparity between Department of the Interior

practice and the wording of the Ninth Circuit opinion in Conner does not require a revision to

the section 7 regulations. Continued use of the incremental step activities in areas outside the

jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit can still be achieved without regulatory amendment. See

Appendix D (SO-7) for a copy of Conner.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 160 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-1

CHAPTER 6 - CONFERENCE

"Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed ... or

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be

designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the

commitment of resources as described in subsection (d)."

 Section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

6.1 THE NEED FOR CONFERENCE

Section 7(a)(4) was added to the Act to provide a mechanism for identifying and resolving

potential conflicts between a proposed action and proposed species or proposed critical

habitat at an early planning stage. While consultations are required when the proposed action

may affect listed species, a conference is required only when the proposed action is likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or destroy or adversely modify

proposed critical habitat. However, Federal action agencies may request a conference on any

proposed action that may affect proposed species or proposed critical habitat. The Services

also can request a conference after reviewing available information suggesting a proposed

action is likely to jeopardize proposed species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical

habitat.

6.2 INFORMAL CONFERENCE

Conferences may involve informal discussions among the Services, the action agency, and the

applicant (if any). During the conference, the Services may assist the action agency in

determining effects and may advise the action agency on ways to avoid or minimize adverse

effects to proposed species (or candidate species if present, and voluntarily considered by the

action agency and/or the applicant), or proposed critical habitat (Figure 6-1). Although not

required by the Act, the Services encourage the formation of partnerships to conserve

candidate species since these species by definition may warrant future protection under the

Act.

(A) Conference Report

Following informal conference with the action agency, the Services issue a conference report

containing recommendations for reducing adverse effects. These recommendations are

advisory because the action agency is not prohibited from jeopardizing the continued existence

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 161 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-2

of a proposed species or destroying or adversely modifying proposed critical habitat until the

species is listed or critical habitat is designated. However, as soon as a listing becomes

effective, the prohibition against jeopardy or adverse modification applies regardless of the

action's stage of completion. Therefore, action agencies should utilize the conference report's

recommendations to avoid likely future conflicts. (Figure 6-2).

(B) Conference Notice

If the Services, instead of the Federal Agency, determine that an action is likely to jeopardize

a proposed species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat, it notifies the

action agency of a need for conference. This takes the form of a letter or memorandum if the

action is likely to jeopardize only a proposed species or adversely modify a proposed critical

habitat. When the Services are already in consultation on listed species or designated critical

habitats, a conference notice is appended after the incidental take statement.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 162 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-3

Figure 6-1. Conference processes.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 163 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-4

6.3 FORMAL CONFERENCE

Action agencies may request formal conference on a proposed action. Although the

regulations (50 CFR §402.10(d)) permit the Services to decide whether formal conference is

appropriate, generally formal conferences should be provided if requested. 

Formal conferences follow the same procedures as formal consultation. The opinion issued at

the end of a formal conference is called a conference opinion. It follows the contents and

format of a biological opinion. However, the incidental take statement provided with a

conference opinion does not take effect until the Services adopt the conference opinion as a

biological opinion on the proposed action - after the species is listed.

(A) Timeframes of Formal Conferences

Section 7 regulations provide no specific schedule for conferences. However, by policy,

formal conferences will follow the same timeframes as formal consultations. The timing of a

formal conference can be affected by a final listing action. If a proposed species is listed

during the conference, and the proposed action still may affect the species, the formal

conference ends and formal consultation begins. The subsequent formal consultation

timeframes begin with the request from the action agency for initiation of formal consultation.

(B) Format of Conference Opinion

Stand-alone conference

A stand-alone conference opinion addresses only proposed species or proposed critical

habitat, and has the same format and contents as a final biological opinion (see chapter 4). 

Standardized language for a stand-alone formal conference opinion includes the following

(sample language for formal stand-alone conference can be found in Appendix B):

If no jeopardy/adverse modification:

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the

action area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the proposed

(action) and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's conference opinion that the

(action), as proposed, (is/is not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

proposed (species), and (is/is not) likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed

critical habitat. 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 164 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-5

In jeopardy or adverse modification opinions with a reasonable and prudent alternative, the

introductory statement is as follows:

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Service concurs with the agency that the

(proposed action) is likely to (jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed

species and/or destroy or adversely modify the proposed critical habitat). While

the Act does not preclude an agency from taking an action with such adverse

effects on a proposed (species/critical habitat), the (agency) is reminded that if the

(species is listed/critical habitat is designated) prior to the completion of the action

or while (agency) still maintains any discretionary authority relative to the action,

the (agency) may be required to modify or suspend the action at that time pending

resolution of formal consultation under section 7. Consequently, the Service

advises (the agency) to consider implementing the following reasonable and

prudent alternative(s).

When the conference opinion finds jeopardy or adverse modification without a reasonable

and prudent alternative, the introductory statement is as follows:

The conference opinion finds the proposed action will result in (likely jeopardy to

the species/destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat), and no

reasonable and prudent alternative can be identified. Any incidental taking is

prohibited by section 9 of the Act.

In the incidental take statement:

Insert the standard Introductory paragraph of the Incidental Take Statement followed by

the paragraph below: 

The prohibitions against taking the species found in section 9 of the Act do not

apply until the species is listed. However, the Service advises the (agency) to

consider implementing the following reasonable and prudent measures. If this

conference opinion is adopted as a biological opinion following a listing or

designation, these measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, will be

non-discretionary.

Once the proposed listing or critical habitat proposal is made final, the action agency writes

the appropriate Service requesting that the conference opinion be confirmed as a biological

opinion.

Conference included in a formal consultation

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 165 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-6

When both listed and proposed species or designated and proposed critical habitats are

affected by a proposed action, the Services advise the action agency of the presence of the

proposed species or proposed critical habitat and determine whether the agency wants them

considered during the formal consultation. If the agency does not, the appropriate Service

may include a notice of the need to confer in the consultation if there is a likely jeopardy to

proposed species or adverse modification to proposed critical habitat. However, if proposed

species or proposed critical habitat are considered in a formal consultation, the analyses for

these species/critical habitats are included in the same sections as the listed species, using the

standardized statements in 5.2(B)(1). Sample language for a combined formal conference/

consultation can be found in Appendix B.

(C) Confirmation of Conference Opinion as a Formal Consultation

Requests for Service confirmation of a conference opinion must be in writing. The Services

must respond within 45 calendar days, and, within that period, may adopt the conference

opinion as the biological opinion issued through formal consultation if no significant changes

have occurred in the proposed action or the information used in the conference. When the

conference opinion is adopted in this manner, it satisfies an action agency's section 7

consultation requirements. If the Services deny the confirmation request, they advise the

action agency to initiate formal consultation unless the "may affect" situation has been

eliminated.

The standard closing statement for formal conferences is as follows:

This concludes the conference for (action). You may ask the Service to confirm the

conference opinion as a biological opinion issued through formal consultation if the

(species is listed or critical habitat is designated). The request must be in writing. 

If the Service reviews the proposed action and finds that there have been no

significant changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the

conference, the Service will confirm the conference opinion as the biological

opinion on the project and no further section 7 consultation will be necessary.

After listing of ((species) as endangered/threatened and/or designation of critical

habitat for (species)) and any subsequent adoption of this conference opinion, the

Federal agency shall request reinitiation of consultation if: (1) the amount or extent

of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency

action that may affect the species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not

considered in this conference opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently

modified in a manner that causes an effect to the species or critical habitat that was

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 166 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-7

not considered in this conference opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical

habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

The incidental take statement provided in this conference opinion does not become

effective until the species is listed and the conference opinion is adopted as the

biological opinion issued through formal consultation. At that time, the project

will be reviewed to determine whether any take of the (species/habitat) has

occurred. Modifications of the opinion and incidental take statement may be

appropriate to reflect that take. No take of the (species/habitat) may occur

between the listing of (species) and the adoption of the conference opinion through

formal consultation, or the completion of a subsequent formal consultation.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 167 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6-8

Figure 6-2. Comparison of the conference and consultation provisions of the

Endangered Species Act and regulations implementing section 7.

 CONFERENCE CONSULTATION

Authority section 7(a)(4) section 7(a)(2)

When Required Federal action to fund, Federal action to fund,

 authorize or carry out authorize or carry out

 an action likely to an action which may

 jeopardize proposed affect listed species

 species or destroy or or designated critical

 adversely modify proposed habitat.

 critical habitat

Types of Informal conference - Informal consultation -

 Procedures Informal discussions Informal discussions

 resulting in advisory resulting in advisory

 recommendations on ways recommendations on ways

 to minimize or avoid to avoid adverse effects.

 adverse effects, avoid If adopted, may lead to

 jeopardy, or adverse a concurrence that the

 modification. If the action is not likely to

 species is listed or the adversely affect the

 critical habitat is listed species/designated

 designated before the critical habitat. ESA

 action is completed, obligation is completed,

 the need for formal based on concurrence by

 consultation must be the Services.

 determined.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 168 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONFERENCE CONSULTATION

6-9

 Formal conference - Formal consultation -

 At the agency's request,

 and Service's concurrence,

 the formal process for

 consultation will be

 followed, resulting in an

 opinion that can stand as

 the biological opinion

 for the action if no

 significant new

 information or change in

 the action develops. The

 incidental take statement

 is not effective unless

 the Services adopt the

 conference opinion once

 the proposed species is

 listed.

 A formal process with

 regulated timeframes,

 that results in the

 development of a 

 biological opinion and

 incidental take

 statement.

Agency Formal conference - Formal Consultation -

 Responsi-

 bilites

 None, but a prudent Adopt the reasonable

 agency would adopt any and prudent alterna-

 reasonable and prudent tives and incidental

 alternatives and take terms and condit-

 incidental take terms ions, or do not undertake

 and conditions if the the action, or apply

 conference opinion is for an exemption.

 expected to be adopted

 as the biological opinion

 following listing.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 169 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 CONFERENCE CONSULTATION

6-10

Irreversible and

 Irretrievable

 Commitment of

 Resources

 Precluding

 Formulation or

 Implementation

 of Reasonable

 and Prudent

 Alternatives -

 Section 7(d)

 Not applicable, but a Can not be made

 prudent agency would not between the "may

 make such a resource affect" finding and the

 commitment if the conclusion of formal

 conference opinion is consultation.

 to be adopted as the 

 biological opinion

 following listing.

Incidental Take Informal conference - Informal consultation - 

 Not required. Not required.

Formal conference - Formal consultation -

 Required to be addressed Required except for

 in the conference opinion plant species - 

 but not effective until anticipated incidental

 adopted by the Services take may be zero.

 after the species is

 listed.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 170 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7-1

CHAPTER 7 - EARLY CONSULTATION

" ... a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency

action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license

applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a

threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that

implementation of such action will likely affect such species."

 Section 7(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act

7.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR EARLY CONSULTATION

Section 7(a)(3) of the Act was added in the 1982 amendments, and is addressed in section

402.11 of the regulations. Early consultations are intended to reduce the potential for

conflicts between listed species or critical habitat and proposed actions. Early consultation is

an optional process that occurs before a prospective applicant files an application for a Federal

permit or license, frequently referred to as pre-application (Figure 7-1). To qualify, a

prospective applicant must certify in writing to the Federal agency that:

o he/she has a definite proposal outlining the action and its effects; and

o he/she intends to implement the proposal if it is authorized.

If the prospective applicant provides the action agency with this information in writing, the

section 7 regulations require the action agency to initiate early consultation with the Services. 

This request contains the same information required for formal consultation (50 CFR

§402.14(c)). If the action is a major construction activity, a biological assessment is required. 

Action agencies conducting an early consultation use the same procedures and have the same

responsibilities as they do for formal consultations. Although early consultation is conducted

between the Services and the action agency, the prospective applicant should be involved

throughout the process.

A long "early consultation" example (Shorelands project in San Francisco Bay) is included in

Appendix C.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 171 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7-2

Figure 7-1. Early Consultation Process.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 172 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7-3

7.2 PROCEDURES

"(2) Consultation under subsection (a)(3) shall be concluded within such period as is

agreeable to the Secretary, the Federal agency, and the applicant concerned."

 Section 7(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act

By regulation (50 CFR §402.11(e)) the procedures and timeframes for early consultation are

the same as those for formal consultation (Chapter 4). The action agency's request for

initiation of early consultation must be accompanied by the information described in 50 CFR

§402.14(c). If the prospective activity involves a major construction activity, the action

agency must prepare a biological assessment before initiating early consultation.

Preliminary biological opinions prepared for early consultations are nearly identical to

biological opinions prepared for formal consultations so they can be confirmed as a final

biological opinion once the prospective applicant submits a permit application to the action

agency. The major difference between a preliminary biological opinion and a final biological

opinion lies in the incidental take statement, which is not effective until the early consultation

is confirmed as a formal consultation. A sample of an early consultation document can be

found in Appendix B, with modified standardized statements including the following:

Closing of incidental take statement:

Because the proposed action is likely to result in the taking of listed species

incidental to that action, the Service has included an incidental take statement

pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the Act. However, because this is an early

consultation on the prospective action, this incidental take statement does not

eliminate the (agency's) or the (applicant's) liability under the taking prohibitions

of section 9 of the Act.

Instead, this statement provides your agency and the applicant with foreknowledge

of the terms and conditions that will be required if this prospective application is

filed with your agency. These reasonable and prudent measures and implementing

terms and conditions become effective only after the Service confirms the

preliminary biological opinion as a final biological opinion on the prospective

action.

7.3 CONFIRMATION AS A FINAL BIOLOGICAL OPINION

"(B) Consultation under subsection (a)(3) of this section, and an opinion issued by

the Secretary incident to such consultation, regarding an agency action shall be

treated respectively as a consultation under subsection (a)(2) of this section, and as

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 173 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7-4

an opinion issued after consultation under such subsection, regarding that action if

the Secretary reviews the action before it is commenced by the Federal agency and

finds, and notifies such agency, that no significant changes have been made with

respect to the action and that no significant change has occurred regarding the

information used during the initial consultation."

 Section 7(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act

At the conclusion of an early consultation, the Services issue a preliminary biological opinion

that has the same format and contents as a final biological opinion. Once the prospective

applicant formally applies for a permit or license from the action agency, and before final

action is taken on the application, the action agency writes the Services to request

confirmation of the preliminary biological opinion as a final biological opinion. Within 45

days, the Services confirm or deny the preliminary opinion as final if there are no significant

changes in the proposed action or the information used in the early consultation. If the

Services confirm the preliminary opinion as final, that action satisfies the action agency's

section 7 consultation requirements. If the Services deny the request, it asks the action

agency to initiate formal consultation. To make the action agency aware of the opportunity to

confirm the early consultation, the following closing paragraph is used:

This concludes early consultation for the (action). You may ask the Service to

confirm this preliminary biological opinion as a final biological opinion on the

prospective action once you receive the permit application from the prospective

applicant. The request must be in writing. If the Service reviews the proposed

action and finds that there are no significant changes in the action as planned or in

the information used during the early consultation, it will confirm the preliminary

biological opinion as a final biological opinion on the project and no further section

7 consultation will be necessary except when one of the following criteria for

reinitiation is met: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new

information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or

critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the 

action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed

species or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new

species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. 

When the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing

such take must cease pending reinitiation.

If the Service does not confirm this preliminary biological opinion as a final

biological opinion on the prospective action, the (agency) is required to initiate

formal consultation with the Service.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 174 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7-5

Exhibit 7-1. Sample letter to prospective applicants about the availability of early

consultation.

(date)

Dear _______:

This responds to your letter of ___(date)___, concerning the upcoming proposed

experimental use of ____________. This agricultural chemical was previously used in [State]

under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Experimental Use Permit (EUP)

___-EUP-__ _.

We have enclosed a general list of all endangered, threatened, and proposed species in [State],

organized by county, for planning purposes. When specific test plots have been designated,

EPA should consult with this office pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (ESA), prior to the issuance of the EUP for _________. 

The enclosed list constitutes technical assistance only. It does not fulfill EPA's requirements

pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; only EPA or their non-Federal designee can fulfill those

requirements. By copy of this letter, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is being made aware

of their responsibility to consult with the FWS to insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or

carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We hope the resulting dialogue

between EPA and the FWS will provide registrants and permittees with better guidance on

compliance with the Endangered Species Act. If EPA chooses not to consult, the FWS cannot

be certain that EPA and you, as the project proponent, have complied with the provisions of

the ESA.

Nevertheless, you should be aware that, pursuant to section 7(a)(3) of the ESA, you have

certain opportunities as an applicant for a Federal permit or license. Section 7(a)(3) and

implementing regulations at 50 C.F.R. §402.11 establish an optional process called "early

consultation," that was specifically designed to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between

listed species or critical habitat and prospective actions such as yours.

Copies of the specific regulations pertaining to early consultations are enclosed. If you have

reason to believe that your proposal, which will eventually be included in an application for

Federal agency approval, may affect listed species or critical habitat, you can ask the Federal

agency issuing a permit or license (in this case it is EPA) to enter into early consultation with

the FWS.

Although early consultation would be between EPA and the FWS, your office must be

involved in the process if you elect to request EPA to initiate early consultation with the FWS. 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 175 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7-6

Your request for EPA to initiate early consultation with the FWS must be in writing and must

certify that: (1) you have a definitive proposal outlining your action and its effects, and (2)

that you intend to carry out your proposal if it is authorized. When EPA receives your

proposal, they are required by the ESA to initiate early consultation with the FWS.

If you have questions regarding our comments, please contact ____(name)____ of this office 

at ____(phone)____.

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 176 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-1

CHAPTER 8 - EMERGENCY CONSULTATION

8.1 THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY CONSULTATION

Section 7 regulations recognize that an emergency (natural disaster or other calamity) may

require expedited consultation (50 CFR §402.05).

Where emergency actions are required that may affect listed species and/or critical habitats, a

Federal agency may not have the time for the administrative work required by the consultation

regulations under non-emergency conditions. Emergency consultations should be handled

with as much understanding of the action agency's critical mission as possible while ensuring

that anticipated actions will not violate sections 7(a)(2) or 7(d). Emergency consultation

procedures allow action agencies to incorporate endangered species concerns into their

actions during the response to an emergency.

An emergency is a situation involving an act of God, disasters, casualties, national defense or

security emergencies, etc., and includes response activities that must be taken to prevent

imminent loss of human life or property. Predictable events, like those covered in Emergency

Use Permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for pesticide applications, usually

do not qualify as emergencies under the section 7 regulations unless there is a significant

unexpected human health risk. Under no circumstances should a Services representative

obstruct an emergency response decision made by the action agency where human life is at

stake.

8.2 PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING EMERGENCY CONSULTATIONS

(A) Initial Contact by the Action Agency

The initial stages of emergency consultations usually are done by telephone or facsimile,

followed as soon as possible (within 48 hours if possible) by written correspondence from the

Services. This provides the Services with an accurate record of the telephone contact. This

record also provides the requesting agency with a formal document reminding them of the

commitments made during the initial step in emergency consultation (Figure 8-1). During this

initial contact, or soon thereafter, the Services' role is to offer recommendations to minimize

the effects of the emergency response action on listed species or their critical habitat (the

informal consultation phase). DO NOT stand in the way of the response efforts.

If this initial review indicates the action may result in jeopardy or adverse modification, and

no means of reducing or avoiding this effect are apparent, the agency should be so advised,

and the Services' conclusions documented.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 177 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-2

Project leaders should establish procedures (e.g., a calling tree) within their offices outlining

who can be called to handle the emergency consultation. Once these procedures have been

established, they should be provided to all Federal agencies in that operating area responsible

for handling emergency situations (e.g., Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, and

Federal Emergency Management Agency) and any other Federal agencies with responsibilities

in the operating area.

The FWS Field Office conducting the consultation should notify the FWS Assistant Regional

Director responsible for endangered species and/or the ecosystem at risk, following

timeframes established by FWS Regional guidance. The notification should be in memo form,

following the format outlined in Exhibit 8-1. Early telephone notification may be required. 

For NMFS, the Regional Director should notify the Director, Office of Protected Resources.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 178 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-3

Figure 8-1. Emergency Consultation Process.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 179 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-4

(B) Initiating Formal Consultation

As soon as practicable after the emergency is under control, the action agency initiates formal

consultation with the Services if listed species or critical habitat have been adversely affected. 

Although formal consultation occurs after the response to the emergency, procedurally it is

treated like any other formal consultation. However, the action agency has to provide

additional information to initiate a formal consultation following an emergency:

o a description of the emergency;

o a justification for the expedited consultation; and

o an evaluation of the response to and the impacts of the emergency on affected

species and their habitats, including documentation of how the Services’

recommendations were implemented, and the results of implementation in

minimizing take.

(C) Emergency Biological Opinion

After concluding formal consultation on an emergency, the Services issue an emergency

biological opinion. The "effects of the action" section, documents the recommendations

provided by the Services to the action agency and the results of agency implementation of the

recommendations on listed species. The timeframe, format and contents are the same as for

formal consultation (Chapter 4). A sample of standardized language for an emergency

consultation document can be found in Appendix B. The standardized statements for formal

consultation have been modified to reflect that this is, in most cases, an after-the-fact

consultation.

Documenting jeopardy and adverse modification biological opinions is particularly

important to tracking the effect on species and habitat conditions. For FWS, emergency

biological opinions with the conclusion of "not likely to jeopardize" the species or "not likely

to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat" are completed at the Field

Office level. However, if the conclusion is likely jeopardy or adverse modification, the

consultation is elevated to the Regional Office. Such a finding may not have a reasonable and

prudent alternative available, unless some further action can restore or enhance the species to

a level below the jeopardy threshold. For NMFS, emergency opinions are signed in

Washington by the Director, Office of Protected Resources, except where a specific Region

has been delegated signature authority (i.e., Northwest and Southwest Regions have been

delegated signature authority for anadromous fish).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 180 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-5

(D) Incidental Take Statement

If incidental take is anticipated during the emergency response, the Services can advise the

action agency during the informal consultation phase of ways to minimize take. In some

circumstances, the actual or estimated take occurring from the agency’s emergency response

actions can be determined, and should be documented in the biological opinion for future

inclusion in the species’ environmental baseline. The incidental take statement in an

emergency consultation does not include reasonable and prudent measures or terms and

conditions to minimize take, unless the agency has an ongoing action related to the

emergency. Rather, an emergency consultation incidental take statement documents the

recommendations given to minimize take during informal consultation, the success of the

agency in carrying out these recommendations, and the ultimate effects on the species of

concern through take. 

(E) Conservation Recommendations

Emergency consultations may contain conservation recommendations to help protect listed

species and their habitats in future emergency situations or initiate beneficial actions to

conserve the species.

Note: While the timing of "emergencies" is unpredictable, the types of emergencies that may

affect listed species or critical habitat can be determined in advance. Emergency response

actions are routinely practiced by responsible Federal agencies. Advance coordination with

responsible Federal agencies is encouraged so that endangered species components can be

incorporated into the emergency response where appropriate.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 181 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-6

Exhibit 8-1. FWS Emergency consultation notification memorandum to the Regional

Office (optional).

(date)

Memorandum

To: Assistant Regional Director, Region __(number)___

From: Field Supervisor, ____(name of Field Office)____

Subject: Emergency Consultation on ____(name of Federal action)___.

This office has completed an informal emergency consultation. The following information

summarizes the location of the emergency, nature of the emergency, listed species and critical

habitat(s) involved, and how those species and habitats are likely to be affected by the

emergency.

Date of Contact: Time:

Contact(s) Name:

Agency:

Contact(s) Title:

Nature of the Emergency:

Species/Critical Habitats in the Area:

Anticipated Effects:

Recommendations Given the Contact:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 182 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-1

CHAPTER 9 - MONITORING AND REPORTING

9.1 MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION/EFFECTS OF REASONABLE AND

PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES AND MEASURES

When incidental take is anticipated, the terms and conditions must include provisions for

monitoring project activities to determine the actual project effects on listed fish or wildlife

species (50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)). Project monitoring, carried out by the Federal agency or

applicant, provides the Services with information essential to assessing the effects of various

actions on listed species and designated critical habitat. Monitoring allows the Services to

track incidental take levels and to refine biological opinions, reasonable and prudent

alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions. Consequently,

monitoring programs should be integral elements of all interagency consultations concluding

that an action may adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.

Monitoring programs resulting from interagency consultations should be designed to: (1)

detect adverse effects resulting from a proposed action, (2) assess the actual level of incidental

take in comparison with the anticipated incidental take level documented in the Biological

Opinion, (3) detect when the level of anticipated incidental take is exceeded, and (4)

determine the effectiveness of reasonable and prudent measures and their implementing terms

and conditions. The following objectives/steps should be taken to develop monitoring

programs:

o Develop objectives. Any monitoring program associated with section 7

consultations should answer specific questions or lead to specific conclusions,

captured in the objectives. If the objectives are well-developed, they will help shape

a complete monitoring program.

o Describe the subject of the monitoring program: Effects on populations of a listed

species, effects on the habitat (critical or not) of a listed species, or effects on both.

o Describe the variables to be measured and how data will be collected. The success

or failure of monitoring programs ultimately depends on the information collected

about the variables that demonstrate or refute a position outlined in the objectives. 

Collection methods should be standardized to ensure comparability with data from

studies in other areas.

o Detail the frequency, timing, and duration of sampling for the variables. 

Determining how frequently and how long to collect data is important to the success

or failure of the program. If the interval between samples is too long or if the

sampling program is too short, the monitoring program may not detect an effect. 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 183 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-2

The frequency, timing, and duration of the sampling regimen should relate to the

type of action being evaluated, the organism affected by the action, and the response

of the organism to the effects produced by the action.

o Describe how the data are to be analyzed and who will conduct the analyses. A

monitoring program is more effective when the analytical methods are integrated

into the design. For example, parametric and non-parametric statistical analyses

require different sample sizes, which will affect the frequency, timing, and duration

of sampling.

o Discuss the relationship between the monitoring program being included in a

consultation and other monitoring programs. At almost any given time, hundreds of

environmental monitoring programs are being conducted in every region of the

country. Whenever possible, these should be coordinated to eliminate duplication,

standardize sampling methods, and/or improve geographic coverage.

9.2 TRACKING COLLECTIVE EFFECTS ON SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS

Managing collected information efficiently improves the overall effectiveness of interagency

consultations and makes it easier to (1) evaluate the effects of various actions as they

accumulate over time, (2) determine which consultations need to be reinitiated when a new

species is listed, (3) determine when the level of incidental take approaches the likely

jeopardy/adverse modification thresholds, (4) exchange similar information across Regional

boundaries, and (5) determine if reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures are carried

out.

(A) FWS

For FWS, the following set of fields and values will form the core of a FWS nationwide

information system on interagency consultation. The fields and values will become part of a

national, computerized information system, which will be developed by a team of WO and

Regional biologists. Data are to be maintained for all formal consultations, conferences, early

consultations, emergency consultations, and concurrence letters that conclude informal

consultations (data on the latter should be kept in case consultations are required because a

new species is proposed or listed, or critical habitat is proposed or designated).

To facilitate data exchange within the FWS, the national database will be maintained and

updated by the Regional Offices and will be posted by the WO on the Threatened and

Endangered Species System (TESS) or on an intra-net page available for read-only access. 

Until this national database becomes operational, each Region should maintain their own

database.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 184 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-3

Field Name Field Values

Species Name For vertebrates, butterflies, and mussels, use

the common name in the format used in the

official list (50 CFR §17). For all other

species (primarily invertebrates and plants)

use the scientific name. Enter only one name

for each record.

Log Number Enter the log number for the consultation. 

Use the following format:

RN-FO-YY-T-XXXX (RX)

RN = Region number

FO = two-number or letter code for the field

office

YY = last two digits of the fiscal year

T = type of consultation

 F = formal

 I = informal

 C = conference

 E = early

 M = emergency

 P = programmatic

XXXX = a sequential number 0001-9999

Reinitiated consultations use the log number

of the original consultation with the letter (R)

added at the end. If there are several

reinitiations for the same consultation, the

suffix reads as (R1) to (RX) for each new

reinitiation.

Record Number Numerical sequence of the record.

Fiscal Year Fiscal year of initiation.

Region Lead Region for consultation.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 185 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-4

Field Name Field Values

Office FWS office that issued the document. Use a

four letter code for field offices; or ROn

(where n is the Region number) for

consultations conducted by a Region.

Action Agency Standard abbreviation for action agencies

where applicable (e.g., EPA, BLM, COE).

Department Standard abbreviation for the department

(e.g., DOI).

Applicant [Pursuant to the Privacy Act, do not maintain

the applicant's name in this file if the applicant

is an individual.]

Action Name Short name of the proposed action (e.g.,

Didion bulk transfer facility; Page Avenue

extension).

Permit Number Permit number used by action agency where

one exists.

Description Short description of the proposed action. For

example, bulk transfer facility, airport

construction, landfill expansion, etc.

Ecoregion Identify the ecoregion number and name. 

Provide a short description of species habitat.

State Standard two letter code for State or

Territory in which proposed action will occur.

County County name or code if multiple counties.

Locality Township, city, or land management area (for

example, Shawnee National Forest, Indiana

Dunes National Lakeshore) in which action

will occur.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 186 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-5

Field Name Field Values

Start Date For consultations and formal conferences,

enter the date initiated.

Date Issued Date the document or concurrence letter was

issued.

Species Conclusion Two letter code for the conclusion of the 

consultation for listed species:

NE = No effect

NL = Not likely to adversely affect

LA = Likely to adversely affect

NJ = Not likely to jeopardize

 J = Likely to jeopardize 

Habitat Conclusion Conclusion of consultation for critical habitat

AM = Destruction or adverse modification

NM = No destruction or adverse modification

RPAs Summary of reasonable and prudent

alternatives for jeopardy or adverse

modification biological opinions.

Take Type Type and quantity/extent of incidental take

anticipated, numbers of individuals by species

name and/or acreages of habitat type.

Take Level Level of take being anticipated (with

reasonable and prudent alternatives

implemented) and time period covered.

RPMs Summary of reasonable and prudent measures

for incidental take.

Terms Enter summary of terms and conditions of

incidental take.

Report Report required (Yes or No).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 187 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-6

Field Name Field Values

Report Frequency How frequently must the action agency

report?

Report Due Date report is due to the FWS.

Conservation Summary of conservation recommendations.

Recommendations

Follow-up Summary of any follow-up evaluation.

Contact Name and telephone number of the individual

who authored the consultation.

Notes Notes on the consultation.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 188 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-7

(B) NMFS

NMFS' Protected Species Status and Tracking System (PSST) is designed to provide rapid

and accurate access to information for protected species and includes information about

section 7 consultations, recovery plans and listing actions.

The part on section 7 consultation contains information on formal and informal consultations. 

Data is maintained for the action, impact, reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures,

and conservation recommendations. Regions provide copies of all opinions to the Office of

Protected Resources where the data system is maintained.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 189 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-8

SUGGESTED READING

Endangered & Threatened Species Conservation

Bean, M.J. 1983. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law. Praeger Publ.; New York, New

York. 449 pp.

Clark, T.W., R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke (eds.) 1994. Endangered Species Recovery -

Finding the Lessons, Improving the Process. Island Press; Washington, D.C. 450 pp.

Gilpin, M.E. and M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species

extinction. pp. 18-34. In: M.E. Soule (ed.) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity

and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc.; Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Goodman, D. 1987a. The demography of chance extinction. pp. 11-19. In: M.E. Soule (ed.)

Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc.;

Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Goodman, D. 1987b. How do any species persist? Lessons for conservation biology. 

Conservation Biology 1:59-62.

Harrison, G.W. 1979. Stability under environmental stress: resistance, resilience, persistence,

and variability. American Naturalist 113:659-669.

Innis, G. 1974. Stability, sensitivity, resilience, persistence. What is of interest? pp.131-139. 

In: S. Levin (ed.) Ecosystem analysis and prediction. SIAM; Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.

Littel, R. 1992. Endangered and Other Protected Species: Federal Law and Regulations. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Inc.; Washington, D.C. 185 pp.

National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National

Academy Press; Washington, D.C. 271 pp.

Pimm, S.L. 1991. The balance of nature: ecological issues in the conservation of species and

communities. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Schaffer, M. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. pp. 69-86. In:

M.E. Soule (ed.) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer

Associates, Inc.; Sunderland, Massachusetts.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 190 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-9

Trudghill, S.T. 1988. Soil and vegetation systems. Second edition. Oxford University Press;

New York, New York.

Underwood, A.J. 1989. The analysis of stress in natural populations. Biological Journal of

the Linnean Society 37:51-78.

Vaughan, R. 1994. Endangered Species Act Handbook. Government Institutes, Inc. 

Rockville, MD. 165 pp.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 191 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX A - REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO CONSULTATION

(1) Interagency Cooperation - 50 CFR §402 (June 3, 1986).

(2) Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened and Other Depleted Marine Mammals - 50

CFR §18, 228 and 402 (September 29, 1989).

(3) Interagency Cooperation Under the Endangered Species Act: information standards;

Section 9 prohibitions; recovery plan participation and implementation; ecosystem

approach; role of the States. 59 FR 166 34271-34275 (July 1, 1994).

(4) Federal Memorandum of Agreement on streamlining consultation procedures for forest

health and salvage projects (May 31, 1995, and February 26, 1997).

(5) Supreme Court Decision on Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great

Oregon, et al. (June 29, 1995).

[Note: These regulations are not available in electronic format.]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 192 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-1

APPENDIX B - FORMATS FOR CONSULTATIONS

[The following documents have been provided to FWS/NMFS Regional offices on disk as well.]

Page

CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION

Form for Early Alert of pending jeopardy/adverse modification

opinions ................................................................. B-3

CHAPTER 4 - FORMAL CONSULTATION

Outline of a formal consultation package, including standardized

statements ............................................................... B-5

Example of an optional letter sent to inform action agencies

that the Service has received a complete initiation package and

will begin formal consultation on a proposed action ............................... B-13

Example of a letter sent when an incomplete formal consultation

request has been received ................................................... B-14

CHAPTER 6 - CONFERENCE

Outline of a formal, stand-alone conference package, including

standardized statements .................................................... B-15

Outline of a formal conference incorporated into a formal

consultation package, including standardized statements ........................... B-23

CHAPTER 7 - EARLY CONSULTATION

Outline of an early consultation package, including standardized

statements .............................................................. B-34

A sample letter to prospective applicants about their early

consultation rights ........................................................ B-43

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 193 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-2

CHAPTER 8 - EMERGENCY CONSULTATION

Outline of an emergency consultation package, including

standardized statements .................................................... B-45

Emergency consultation notification memorandum to the Regional

Office (optional) ......................................................... B-49

INTRA-SERVICE CONSULTATION

Intra-Service section 7 biological evaluation form, with

instructions ............................................................. B-50

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 194 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-3

Form for an early alert

EARLY ALERT

Prepared for: Director State(s):

Date submitted: 

___________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE: Draft/Final [jeopardy/adverse modification] [opinion/conference] for the [name of the

project]

CONSULTING AGENCY/APPLICANT:

DATE CONSULTATION INITIATED:

DATE COMPLETION OF CONSULTATION IS DUE:

DATE OF ANY EXTENSIONS: (explain reason for extension)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (provide a brief summary)

EFFECT ON SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT: (provide a brief summary of effect on

[species/critical habitat])

I. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES: (list)

A. HAVE YOU COORDINATED WITH THE AGENCY/APPLICANT TO

DEVELOP THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES? (yes) 

(no) EXPLAIN.

B. HAVE YOU COORDINATED WITH ALL AFFECTED TRIBAL

GOVERNMENTS TO DEVELOP THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT

ALTERNATIVES PER SECRETARIAL ORDER #3206?

(yes) (no) EXPLAIN

C. IF NOT, HAVE THE PROPOSED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT

ALTERNATIVES BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE ACTION

AGENCY/APPLICANT? WHAT WAS THEIR REACTION?

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 195 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-4

D. IS THE AGENCY/APPLICANT WILLING TO INCORPORATE THE

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES AND AMEND THEIR

PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO AVOID A JEOPARDY/ADVERSE

MODIFICATION OPINION? (yes) (no) EXPLAIN WHY/WHY NOT.

E. IF THERE ARE NO REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES, WHAT

IS THE SCHEDULE FOR COORDINATING WITH THE AGENCY/APPLICANT

TO DEVELOP THEM? EXPLAIN.

II. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES: (list)

A. HAVE YOU COORDINATED WITH THE AGENCY/APPLICANT TO

DEVELOP THE REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES? (yes) (no) 

EXPLAIN.

B. IF NOT, HAVE THE PROPOSED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE ACTION AGENCY/APPLICANT? WHAT WAS

THEIR REACTION?

C. IS THE AGENCY/APPLICANT WILLING TO IMPLEMENT THE

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS

OF INCIDENTAL TAKE? (yes) (no) EXPLAIN WHY/WHY NOT.

D. IF THERE ARE NO REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES, WHAT IS

THE SCHEDULE FOR COORDINATING WITH THE AGENCY/APPLICANT

TO DEVELOP THEM? EXPLAIN.

III. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AFFECTED:

(list the Senators/Representatives and their Congressional district)

IV. EXPECTED REACTION OF AGENCY/APPLICANT/OTHER INTERESTED

PARTIES (tribes, States, NGOs):

REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACT: (name, office, phone number)

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 196 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-5

Outline of a formal consultation package, including standardized statements

Address

Salutation

Introductory Paragraph:

This document transmits the (Fish and Wildlife Service's/National Marine Fisheries

Service's) (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed (name or

designation for the action) located in (County, State, and Marine Area as

appropriate), and its effects on (species) in accordance with section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your

(date) request for formal consultation was received on (date).

 

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the (date) biological

assessment (or other title), the (date) draft environmental assessment (or

environmental impact statement), the (date) project proposal, telephone

conversations of (dates) with (names), field investigations, and other sources of

information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at (this

office/elsewhere).

Consultation History

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Conservation Measures

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (rangewide and/or recovery unit)

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (in the action area)

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Introduction:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 197 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-6

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions

that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological

opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not

considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to

section 7 of the Act.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the

action area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the proposed

(action) and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the

(action), as proposed, (is/is not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

(species), and (is/is not) likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical

habitat. [If no critical habitat has been designated for the species or the action will not

affect designated critical habitat, use one of the following statements.] No critical

habitat has been designated for this species, therefore, none will be affected. -ORCritical habitat for this species has been designated at (location), however, this

action does not affect that area and no destruction or adverse modification of that

critical habitat is anticipated.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES (as appropriate)

Introductory Paragraph:

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define reasonable

and prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal

consultation, that: (1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended

purpose of the action; (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action

agency's legal authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically

feasible; and (4) would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the

continued existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat.

Closing paragraph:

Because this biological opinion has found (jeopardy/destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat), the (agency) is required to notify the Service of its

final decision on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 198 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-7

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Introductory paragraph:

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act 

prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without 

special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,

kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is

further defined by FWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation

that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by

FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed

species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an

otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),

taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not

considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in

compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by

the (agency) so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to

the (applicant), as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The

(agency) has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental

take statement. If the (agency) (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and

conditions or (2) fails to require the (applicant) to adhere to the terms and

conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are

added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2)

may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the (agency or

applicant) must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the

Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]

The incidental take statement for any section 10(a)(1)(B) permit application includes the

following standardized language which would replace the second paragraph above:

The proposed [name] HCP and its associated documents clearly identify anticipated

impacts to affected species likely to result from the proposed taking and the

measures that are necessary and appropriate to minimize those impacts. All

conservation measures described in the proposed HCP, together with the terms and

conditions described in any associated Implementing Agreement and any section

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 199 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-8

10(a)(1)(B) permit or permits issued with respect to the proposed HCP, are hereby

incorporated by reference as reasonable and prudent measures and terms and

conditions within this Incidental Take Statement pursuant to 50 CFR §402.14(i). 

Such terms and conditions are non-discretionary and must be undertaken for the

exemptions under section 10(a)(1)(B) and section 7(o)(2) of the Act to apply. If the

permittee fails to adhere to these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of

the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and section 7(o)(2) may lapse. The amount or extent

of incidental take anticipated under the proposed [name] HCP, associated reporting

requirements, and provisions for disposition of dead or injured animals are as

described in the HCP and its accompanying section 10(a)(1)(B) permit(s)].

When the biological opinion finds jeopardy or adverse modification without a reasonable and

prudent alternative, the introductory statement is as follows:

This biological opinion finds the proposed action will result in (likely jeopardy to the

species/destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat), and no reasonable

and prudent alternative can be identified. Any incidental taking is prohibited by

section 9 of the Act.

If listed plant species are present in the action area, the following special incidental take

provisions apply: 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. 

However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that

the Act prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed

endangered plants or the malicious damage of such plants on areas under Federal

jurisdiction, or the destruction of endangered plants on non-Federal areas in

violation of State law or regulation or in the course of any violation of a State

criminal trespass law. [Include citations to any applicable State laws.]

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

Incidental take statement when no take is anticipated (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service does not anticipate the proposed action will incidentally take any

(species).

Incidental take statement for a biological opinion of likely jeopardy when incidental take is

anticipated:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 200 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-9

o For opinions with only one reasonable and prudent alternative:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that the reasonable and prudent alternative will be implemented.

o For opinions with more than one reasonable and prudent alternative, provide separate estimates

of anticipated take for each reasonable and prudent alternative, as appropriate:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that reasonable and prudent alternative number XX will be implemented.

Introductory statement for amount and extent of take (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service anticipates (number of individuals or extent of habitat resulting from

take of (species)) could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The incidental

take is expected to be in the form of (harm, harass, kill, etc.). [Separately specify each

type of take anticipated.]

[Provide a concise summary of the analysis leading to this determination.]

 OR

The Service anticipates incidental take of (species) will be difficult to detect for the

following reason(s): [Incidental take of actual species numbers may be difficult to detect

when the species is wide-ranging; has small body size; finding a dead or impaired specimen

is unlikely; losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes

(e.g., oxygen depletions for aquatic species); or the species occurs in habitat (e.g., caves)

that makes detection difficult]. However, the following level of take of this species can

be anticipated by loss of [quantify amount of surrogate species, food, cover, other

essential habitat element such as water quantity or quality, or symbiont] because: [provide

an explanation].

When take of listed migratory birds (including the bald eagle) will result from the actions under

consultation:

The Fish and Wildlife Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory

bird or bald eagle for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as

amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of

1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d), if such take is in compliance with the

terms and conditions (including amount and/or number) specified herein.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 201 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-10

Standard paragraph for incidental take of marine mammals: [If the incidental take is not

authorized under MMPA 101(a)(5):]

The Service is not including an incidental take authorization for marine mammals at

this time because the incidental take of marine mammals has not been authorized

under section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or its 1994

Amendments. Following issuance of such regulations or authorizations, the Service

may amend this biological opinion to include an incidental take statement for

marine mammals, as appropriate.

After area-specific or activity-specific regulations have taken effect:

Pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended in

1994, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR §18.27, and 50 CFR §216 and §229,

the following measures are required to be consistent with the total taking allowable

under the MMPA authorization and to effect the least practical adverse impact on

the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses:

[Cite measures identified in specific regulations and/or letters of authorization or permits

for commercial fishing]. Pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act,

the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to

minimize take: [Go on to list the measures, followed by the standard paragraph for

terms and conditions.]

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

The following statement should be made when the biological opinion finds likely

jeopardy/adverse modification, and no reasonable and prudent alternative is available: 

Because the proposed action is (1) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

(species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, and 

(2) no reasonable and prudent alternatives have been identified, any incidental take

resulting from the proposed action would be prohibited.

If the proposed action is not likely to result in jeopardy/adverse modification:

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of

anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat.

If the opinion contains reasonable and prudent alternatives:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 202 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-11

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of

anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat when (one of) the reasonable and prudent

alternative(s) is implemented.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES (as appropriate)

Standardized introductory paragraph for reasonable and prudent measures for species other than

marine mammals and migratory birds:

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure(s) are necessary

and appropriate to minimize take of (species): [Go on to list these measures and

provide a brief discussion documenting the Service's analysis of the biological need for,

and reasonableness of, these measures.]

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Standardized introductory paragraph for terms and conditions:

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the (agency)

must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the

reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required

reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary. [Go on to list these terms and conditions, including the requirements for

monitoring, reporting, review, [see 50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)] and disposition of any specimens

[see 50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(v)).] 

Salvage of specimens and/or habitat data included as a term and condition (as appropriate)

Closing Paragraph:

The Service believes that no more than (number or extent) of (species) will

be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable and

prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed

to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the

proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take

is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring

reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent

measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately provide an

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 203 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-12

explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for

possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

CONFERENCE REPORT/CONFERENCE NOTICE (as appropriate)

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Introductory paragraph:

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to

further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the

benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are

discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed

action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to

develop information. 

Closing paragraph:

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding

adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests

notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

REINITIATION NOTICE

The standard closing statement of the formal consultation package is as follows:

This concludes formal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the

(request/reinitiation request). As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal

consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control

over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or

extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the

agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an

extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified

in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not

considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated

that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of

incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending

reinitiation.

LITERATURE CITED

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 204 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-13

Example of a letter sent to inform action agencies the Services have received a complete

initiation package and will begin formal consultation on a proposed action.

(date)

Dear _______ :

This letter acknowledges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's [or National Marine Fisheries

Service's] (Service) [date of receipt of letter initiating consultation] receipt of your [date of

agency's initiating letter] letter requesting initiation of formal section 7 consultation under the

Endangered Species Act. The consultation concerns the possible effects of your proposed [name

and location of the action] on [name of listed species and/or critical habitats affected].

All information required of you to initiate consultation was either included with your letter or is

otherwise accessible for our consideration and reference. We have assigned log number [log

number] to this consultation. Please refer to that number in future correspondence on this

consultation.

Section 7 allows the Service up to 90 calendar days to conclude formal consultation with your

agency and an additional 45 calendar days to prepare our biological opinion (unless we mutually

agree to an extension). Therefore, we expect to provide you with our biological opinion no later

than [date = 135 calendar days after receipt of initiation request].

As a reminder, the Endangered Species Act requires that after initiation of formal consultation,

the Federal action agency may not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources

that limits future options. This practice insures agency actions do not preclude the formulation or

implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives that avoid jeopardizing the continued

existence of endangered or threatened species or destroying or modifying their critical habitats.

If you have any questions or concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in

general, please feel free to contact me or [name of staff member] at [number].

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 205 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-14

Example of a letter sent when an incomplete formal consultation request has been received.

(date)

Dear _________ :

This letter acknowledges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's [or National Marine Fisheries

Service's] (Service) [date of receipt of letter initiating consultation] receipt of your [date of

agency's initiating letter] letter requesting initiation of formal section 7 consultation under the

Endangered Species Act. The consultation concerns the possible effects of your proposed [name

and location of the action] on [name of listed species and/or critical habitats affected].

The Service has not received all of the information necessary to initiate formal consultation on

[name of the project] as outlined in the regulations governing interagency consultations (50 CFR

§402.14). To complete the initiation package, we will require the following information:

1. [Outline the additional information needs. Follow the general sequence and use language in 50

CFR §402.14(c) to identify each piece of missing information.]

2. etc.

The formal consultation process for the project will not begin until we receive all of the

information, or a statement explaining why that information cannot be made available. We will

notify you when we receive this additional information; our notification letter will also outline the

dates within which formal consultation should be complete and the biological opinion delivered on

the proposed action.

If you have any questions or concerns about this consultation or the consultation process in

general, please feel free to call me at [number].

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 206 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-15

Outline of a formal, stand-alone conference package, including standardized statements

Address

Salutation

Introductory Paragraph:

This document transmits the (Fish and Wildlife Service's/National Marine Fisheries

Service's) conference opinion based on the Service's review of the proposed (name

or designation for the action) located in (County, State and Marine Area as

appropriate), and its effects on (species) in accordance with section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your (date)

request for formal conference was received on (date).

 

This conference opinion is based on information provided in the (date) biological

assessment (or other title), the (date) draft environmental assessment (or

environmental impact statement), the (date) project proposal, telephone

conversations of (dates) with (names), field investigations, and other sources of

information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in (this

office/elsewhere).

Conference History

CONFERENCE OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Conservation Measures

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (rangewide)

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (in the action area)

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Introduction:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 207 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-16

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

CONCLUSION

If no jeopardy/adverse modification:

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the action

area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the proposed (action) and the

cumulative effects, it is the Service's conference opinion that the (action), as proposed, (is/is

not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed (species), and (is/is not)

likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. 

In jeopardy or adverse modification opinions:

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Service concurs with the agency that the (proposed

action) is likely to (jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed species and/or

destroy or adversely modify the proposed critical habitat). While the Act does not preclude

an agency from taking an action with such adverse effects on a proposed (species/critical

habitat), the (agency) is reminded that if the (species is listed/critical habitat is designated)

prior to the completion of the action or while (agency) still maintains any discretionary

authority relative to the action, the (agency) may be required to modify or suspend the

action at that time pending resolution of formal consultation under section 7. 

Consequently, the Service advises (the agency) to consider implementing the following

reasonable and prudent alternative(s).

When the conference opinion finds jeopardy or adverse modification without a reasonable and prudent

alternative, the introductory statement is as follows:

The conference opinion finds the proposed action will result in (likely jeopardy

to the species/destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat), and no

reasonable and prudent alternative can be identified. While the Act does not

preclude an agency from taking an action with such adverse effects on a proposed (species/critical

habitat), the (agency) is reminded that if the (species is

listed/critical habitat is designated) prior to the completion of the action or while

(agency) still maintains any discretionary authority relative to the action, the 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 208 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-17

(agency) may be required to modify or suspend the action at that time pending resolution of

formal consultation under section 7.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES (as appropriate)

Introductory Paragraph:

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define reasonable and

prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that: (1)

can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action; (2) can

be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency's legal authority and

jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically feasible; and (4) would, the Service

believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or

resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Introductory paragraph:

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the

take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is

defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by FWS to include

significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed

species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding,

or sheltering. Harass is defined by FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the

likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal

behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. 

Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying

out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),

taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to

be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the

terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

The prohibitions against taking the species found in section 9 of the Act do not

apply until the species is listed. However, the Service advises the (agency) to

consider implementing the following reasonable and prudent measures. If this

conference opinion is adopted as a biological opinion following a listing or

designation, these measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, will be

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 209 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-18

 nondiscretionary, and must be undertaken by the (agency) so that they become

binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the (applicant), as appropriate,

for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The (agency) has a continuing duty to

regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the (agency) (1)

fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the

(applicant) to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement

through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the

protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of

incidental take, the (agency or applicant) must report the progress of the action and

its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. 

[50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]

If listed plant species are present in the action area, the following special incidental take

provisions apply: 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. 

However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that

the Act prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed

endangered plants or the malicious damage of such plants on areas under Federal

jurisdiction, or the destruction of endangered plants on non-Federal areas in

violation of State law or regulation or in the course of any violation of a State

criminal trespass law. [Include citations to any applicable State laws.]

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

Incidental take statement when no take is anticipated (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service does not anticipate the proposed action will incidentally take any

(species).

Incidental take statement for a conference opinion of likely jeopardy when incidental take is

anticipated:

o For opinions with only one reasonable and prudent alternative:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that the reasonable and prudent alternative will be implemented.

o For opinions with more than one reasonable and prudent alternative, provide separate estimates

of anticipated take for each reasonable and prudent alternative, as appropriate:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 210 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-19

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that reasonable and prudent alternative number XX will be implemented.

Introductory statement for amount and extent of take (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service anticipates (number of individuals or extent of habitat resulting from

take of (species)) could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The incidental

take is expected to be in the form of (harm, harass, kill, etc.). [Separately specify each

type of take anticipated.]

[Provide a concise summary of the analysis leading to this determination.]

 OR

The Service anticipates incidental take of (species) will be difficult to detect for the

following reason(s): [Incidental take of actual species numbers may be difficult to detect

when the species is wide-ranging; has small body size; finding a dead or impaired specimen

is unlikely; losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes

(e.g., oxygen depletions for aquatic species); or the species occurs in habitat (e.g., caves)

that makes detection difficult]. However, the following level of take of this species can

be anticipated by loss of [quantify amount of surrogate species, food, cover, other

essential habitat element such as water quantity or quality, or symbiont] because: [provide

an explanation].

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

The following statement should be made when the conference opinion finds likely

jeopardy/adverse modification, and no reasonable and prudent alternative is available: 

Because the proposed action is 1) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

(species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical

habitat, and 2) no reasonable and prudent alternatives have been identified, any

incidental take resulting from the proposed action will be prohibited once the

species is listed or the critical habitat is designated.

If the proposed action is not likely to result in jeopardy/adverse modification:

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of

anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the proposed species or

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 211 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-20

If the opinion contains reasonable and prudent alternatives:

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of

anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the proposed species or destruction

or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat when (one of) the reasonable and

prudent alternative(s) is implemented.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES (as appropriate)

Standardized introductory paragraph for reasonable and prudent measures for species other than

marine mammals and migratory birds:

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure(s) are necessary and

appropriate to minimize take of (species): [Go on to list these measures and provide a brief

discussion documenting the Service's analysis of the biological need for, and reasonableness of,

these measures.]

The prohibitions against taking the species found in section 9 of the Act do not apply

until the species is listed. However, the Service advises the (agency) to consider

implementing the following reasonable and prudent measures. If this conference

opinion is adopted as a biological opinion following a listing or designation, these

measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, will be nondiscretionary.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Standardized introductory paragraph for terms and conditions:

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act once the proposed

species is listed, the (agency) must comply with the following terms and conditions,

which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline

required reporting/monitoring requirements. If this conference opinion is adopted as a

biological opinion following a listing or designation, these terms and conditions will be

non-discretionary.

[Go on to list these terms and conditions, including the requirements for monitoring, reporting,

review, and disposition of any specimens.] 

Salvage of specimens and/or habitat data included as a term and condition (as appropriate)

Closing paragraph:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 212 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-21

The Service believes that no more than (number or extent) of (species) will be

incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable and prudent

measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the

impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If,

during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental

take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the

reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately

provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need

for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Introductory paragraph:

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further

the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of

endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary

agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed

species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

Closing paragraph:

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse

effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of

the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

REINITIATION NOTICE

The standard closing statement for formal conferences is as follows:

This concludes the conference for (action). You may ask the Service to confirm the

conference opinion as a biological opinion issued through formal consultation if the

(species is listed or critical habitat is designated). The request must be in writing. If the

Service reviews the proposed action and finds that there have been no significant

changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the conference, the

Service will confirm the conference opinion as the biological opinion on the project and

no further section 7 consultation will be necessary.

After (listing of the (species) as endangered/threatened and/or designation of critical

habitat for (species)) and any subsequent adoption of this conference

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 213 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-22

opinion, the Federal agency shall request reinitiation of consultation if: (1) the

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects

of the agency action that may affect the species or critical habitat in a manner or to

an extent not considered in this conference opinion; (3) the agency action is

subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the species or critical

habitat that was not considered in this conference opinion; or (4) a new species is

listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

The incidental take statement provided in this conference opinion does not become

effective until the species is listed and the conference opinion is adopted as the

biological opinion issued through formal consultation. At that time, the project will

be reviewed to determine whether any take of the (species/habitat) has occurred. 

Modifications of the opinion and incidental take statement may be appropriate to

reflect that take. No take of the (species/habitat) may occur between the listing of

(species) and the adoption of the conference opinion through formal consultation, or

the completion of a subsequent formal consultation.

LITERATURE CITED

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 214 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-23

Outline of a formal conference incorporated into a formal consultation package, including

standardized statements

Address

Salutation

Introductory Paragraph:

This document transmits the (Fish and Wildlife Service's/National Marine Fisheries

Service's) biological and conference opinions based on the Service's review of the

proposed (name or designation for the action) located in (County, State, and Marine

Area as appropriate), and its effects on (species) in accordance with section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your (date)

request for formal consultation was received on (date).

 

These biological and conference opinions are based on information provided in the

(date) biological assessment (or other title), the (date) draft environmental

assessment (or environmental impact statement), the (date) project proposal,

telephone conversations of (dates) with (names), field investigations, and other

sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on

file in (this office/elsewhere).

Consultation History

BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINIONS

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Conservation Measures

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (rangewide and/or recovery unit)

Listed species/critical habitat:

Proposed species/critical habitat:

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (in the action area)

Listed species/critical habitat:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 215 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-24

Proposed species/critical habitat:

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

Listed species/critical habitat:

Proposed species/critical habitat:

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Introduction:

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

CONCLUSION

Listed species/critical habitat:

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the action

area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the proposed (action) and the

cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the (action), as proposed, (is/is

not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the (species), and (is/is not) likely to

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. [If no critical habitat has been

designated for the species or the action will not affect designated critical habitat, use one of the

following statements.] No critical habitat has been designated for this species, therefore,

none will be affected. -OR- Critical habitat for this species has been designated at

(location), however, this action does not affect that area and no destruction or adverse

modification of that critical habitat is anticipated.

Proposed species/critical habitat:

If no jeopardy/adverse modification:

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the

action area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the proposed

(action) and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's conference opinion that the 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 216 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-25

(action), as proposed, (is/is not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

proposed (species), and (is/is not) likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical

habitat. 

In jeopardy or adverse modification opinions:

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Service concurs with the agency that the (proposed

action) is likely to (jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed species and/or

destroy or adversely modify the proposed critical habitat). While the Act does not

preclude an agency from taking an action with such adverse effects on a proposed

(species/critical habitat), the (agency) is reminded that if the (species is listed/critical

habitat is designated) prior to the completion of the action or while (agency) still

maintains any discretionary authority relative to the action, the (agency) may be

required to modify or suspend the action at that time pending resolution of the formal

consultation under section 7. Consequently, the Service advises (the agency) to consider

implementing the following reasonable and prudent alternative(s).

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES (as appropriate)

Introductory Paragraph:

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define reasonable and

prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that:

(1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action;

(2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency's legal authority

and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically feasible; and (4) would, the

Service believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed

species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

[Break out discussions for listed and proposed species/critical habitats separately.]

Closing Paragraph:

Because this (biological and/or conference) opinion has found (jeopardy/destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat), the (agency) is required to notify the Service of

its final decision on the implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 217 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-26

Introductory paragraph:

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the

take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take

is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by FWS to include

significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed

species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding,

or sheltering. Harass is defined by FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the

likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal

behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. 

Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying

out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),

taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered

to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the

terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the

(agency) so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the

(applicant), as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The (agency) has

a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the

(agency) (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require

the (applicant) to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement

through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective

coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take,

the (agency or applicant) must report the progress of the action and its impact on the

species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]

The incidental take statement for any section 10(a)(1)(b) permit application includes the following

standardized language which would replace the second paragraph above:

The proposed [name] HCP and its associated documents clearly identify

anticipated impacts to affected species likely to result from the proposed taking

and the measures that are necessary and appropriate to minimize those impacts.

All conservation measures described in the proposed HCP, together with the terms

and conditions described in any associated Implementing Agreement and any

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit or permits issued with respect to the proposed HCP, are

hereby incorporated by reference as reasonable and prudent measures and terms

and conditions within this Incidental Take Statement pursuant to 50 CFR 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 218 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-27

§402.14(i). Such terms and conditions are non-discretionary and must be undertaken for

the exemptions under section 10(a)(1)(B) and section 7(o)(2) of the Act to apply. If the

permittee fails to adhere to these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of the

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and section 7(o)(2) may lapse. The amount or extent of

incidental take anticipated under the proposed [name] HCP, associated reporting

requirements, and provisions for disposition of dead or injured animals are as described in

the HCP and its accompanying section 10(a)(1)(B) permit(s).

When the biological and/or conference opinion finds jeopardy or adverse modification without

a reasonable and prudent alternative, the introductory statement is as follows:

The (biological and/or conference) opinion finds the proposed action will result in

(likely jeopardy to the species/destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat), and no reasonable and prudent alternative can be identified. Any

incidental taking is prohibited by section 9 of the Act. (For conference opinion

change last sentence to) Once the species is listed or the critical habitat is

designated, any incidental taking is prohibited by section 9 of the Act.

If listed plant species are present in the action area, the following special incidental take

provisions apply: 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act do not apply to listed plant species. However,

limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the Act

prohibits the removal of Federally listed endangered plants or the malicious damage

of such plants on areas under Federal jurisdiction, or the destruction of listed plants

on non-Federal areas in violation of State law or regulation. [Include citations to any

applicable State laws.]

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

[Break out discussions for listed and proposed species separately.]

Incidental take statement when no take is anticipated (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service does not anticipate the proposed action will incidentally take any

(species).

Incidental take statement for a biological/conference opinion of likely jeopardy when incidental

take is anticipated:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 219 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-28

o For opinions with only one reasonable and prudent alternative:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that the reasonable and prudent alternative will be implemented.

o For opinions with more than one reasonable and prudent alternative, provide separate estimates

of anticipated take for each reasonable and prudent alternative, as appropriate:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that reasonable and prudent alternative number XX will be implemented.

Introductory statement for amount and extent of take (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service anticipates (number of individuals or extent of habitat resulting from

take of (species)) could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The incidental

take is expected to be in the form of (harm, harass, kill, etc.). [Separately specify each

type of take anticipated.]

[Provide a concise summary of the analysis leading to this determination.]

 OR

The Service anticipates incidental take of (species) will be difficult to detect for the

following reason(s): [Incidental take of actual species numbers may be difficult to detect

when the species is wide-ranging; has small body size; finding a dead or impaired specimen

is unlikely; losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes

(e.g., oxygen depletions for aquatic species); or the species occurs in habitat (e.g., caves)

that makes detection difficult]. However, the following level of take of this species can

be anticipated by loss of [quantify amount of surrogate species, food, cover, other

essential habitat element such as water quantity or quality, or symbiont] because: [provide

an explanation].

When take of listed migratory birds (including the bald eagle) will result from the actions under

consultation:

The Fish and Wildlife Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory

bird or bald eagle for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as

amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of

1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d), if such take is in compliance with the

terms and conditions (including amount and/or number) specified herein.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 220 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-29

Standard paragraph for incidental take of marine mammals: [If the incidental take is not authorized

under MMPA 101(a)(5):]

The Service is not including an incidental take authorization for marine mammals at this

time because the incidental take of marine mammals has not been authorized under

section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or its 1994 Amendments. 

Following issuance of such regulations or authorizations, the Service may amend this

biological opinion to include an incidental take statement for marine mammals, as

appropriate.

After area-specific or activity-specific regulations have taken effect:

Pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended in

1994, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR §18.27, and 50 CFR §216 and §229, the

following measures are required to be consistent with the total taking allowable under

the MMPA authorization and to effect the least practical adverse impact on the species

and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses: [Cite measures

identified in specific regulations and/or letters of authorization or permits for commercial

fishing]. Pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act, the following

reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize take: [Go

on to list the measures, followed by the standard paragraph for terms and conditions.]

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

[Break out discussion for listed and proposed species separately.]

The following statement should be made when the opinion finds likely jeopardy/adverse

modification, and no reasonable and prudent alternative is available: 

For biological opinions: 

Because the proposed action is (1) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

(species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, and (2)

no reasonable and prudent alternatives have been identified, any incidental take

resulting from the proposed action would be prohibited.

For conference opinions:

Because the proposed action is 1) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

(species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 221 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-30

habitat, and 2) no reasonable and prudent alternatives have been identified, any

incidental take resulting from the proposed action will be prohibited once the species is

listed or the critical habitat is designated.

If the action is not likely to result in jeopardy/adverse modification:

In the accompanying biological/conference opinion, the Service determined that this

level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction

or adverse modification of critical habitat.

If the opinion contains reasonable and prudent alternatives:

In the accompanying biological/conference opinion, the Service determined that this

level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction

or adverse modification of critical habitat when (one of) the reasonable and prudent

alternative(s) is implemented.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES (as appropriate)

[Break out discussion of listed and proposed species separately.]

Standardized introductory paragraph for reasonable and prudent measures for species other than

marine mammals and migratory birds:

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure(s) are necessary

and appropriate to minimize take of (species): [Go on to list these measures and provide

a brief discussion documenting the Service's analysis of the biological need for, and

reasonableness of, these measures.]

Add for proposed species:

The prohibitions against taking the species found in section 9 of the Act do not apply

until the species is listed. However, the Service advises the (agency) to consider

implementing the following reasonable and prudent measures. If this conference

opinion is adopted as a biological opinion following a listing or designation, these

measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, will be nondiscretionary.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

[Break out discussions for listed and proposed species separately.]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 222 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-31

Standardized introductory paragraph for terms and conditions:

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the (agency) must

comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and

prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring

requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

[Go on to list these terms and conditions, including the requirements for monitoring, reporting,

review, and disposition of any specimens.] 

Salvage of specimens and/or habitat data included as a term and condition (as appropriate)

Closing paragraph:

The Service believes that no more than (number or extent) of (species) will be incidentally

taken as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their

implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take

that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action,

this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information

requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures

provided. The Federal agency must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of

the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable

and prudent measures. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Introductory paragraph:

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered

and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities

to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical

habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

Closing paragraph:

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding

adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests

notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 223 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-32

REINITIATION NOTICE

The standard closing statement for formal consultation/conferences is as follows:

This concludes formal consultation and conference on the action(s) outlined in the

(request/reinitiation request). As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal

consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over

the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of

incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that

may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in

this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an

effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new

species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In

instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations

causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. 

You may ask the Service to confirm the conference opinion as a biological opinion issued

through formal consultation if the (species is listed or critical habitat is designated). The

request must be in writing. If the Service reviews the proposed action and finds that

there have been no significant changes in the action as planned or in the information

used during the conference, the Service will confirm the conference opinion as the

biological opinion on the project and no further section 7 consultation will be necessary.

After (listing of the (species) as endangered/threatened and/or designation of critical

habitat for (species)) and any subsequent adoption of this conference opinion, the

Federal agency shall request reinitiation of consultation if: (1) the amount or extent of

incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that

may affect the species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in

this conference opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that

causes an effect to the species or critical habitat that was not considered in this

conference opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may

be affected by the action.

The incidental take statement provided in this conference opinion does not become

effective until the species is listed and the conference opinion is adopted as the biological

opinion issued through formal consultation. At that time, the project

will be reviewed to determine whether any take of the (species/habitat) has

occurred. Modifications of the opinion and incidental take statement may be

appropriate to reflect that take. No take of the (species/habitat) may occur 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 224 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-33

between the (listing of the (species) and the adoption of the conference opinion through

formal consultation, or the completion of a subsequent formal consultation.

LITERATURE CITED

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 225 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-34

Outline of an early consultation package, including standardized statements

Address

Salutation

Introductory Paragraph:

This document transmits the (Fish and Wildlife Service's/National Marine Fisheries

Service's) preliminary biological opinion based on the Service's review of the

proposed (name or designation for the action) located in (County, State, and Marine

Area as appropriate), and its effects on (species) in accordance with section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your (date)

request for formal consultation was received on (date).

 

This preliminary biological opinion is based on information provided in the (date)

biological assessment (or other title), the (date) draft environmental assessment (or

environmental impact statement), the (date) project proposal, telephone

conversations of (dates) with (names), field investigations, and other sources of

information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in (this

office/elsewhere).

Consultation History

PRELIMINARY BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Conservation Measures

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (rangewide and/or recovery unit)

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (in the action area)

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Introduction:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 226 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-35

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions

that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this preliminary

biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action

are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant

to section 7 of the Act.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the

action area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the proposed

(action) and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's preliminary biological opinion

that the (action), as proposed, (is/is not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

the (species), and (is/is not) likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical

habitat. [If no critical habitat has been designated for the species or the action will not affect

designated critical habitat, use one of the following statements.] No critical habitat has

been designated for this species, therefore, none will be affected. -OR- Critical habitat

for this species has been designated at (location), however, this action does not affect

that area and no destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is

anticipated.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES (as appropriate)

Introductory Paragraph:

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define reasonable and

prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that:

(1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the

action; (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency's legal

authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically feasible; and (4)

would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence

of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat.

Closing paragraph:

Because this preliminary biological opinion has found (jeopardy/destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat), the (agency) is required to notify the Service of its

final decision on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 227 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-36

Introductory paragraph:

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act 

prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without 

special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,

kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is

further defined by FWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation

that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by

FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed

species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an

otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),

taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not

considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in

compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by

the (agency) so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to

the (applicant), as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The

(agency) has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental

take statement. If the (agency) (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and

conditions or (2) fails to require the (applicant) to adhere to the terms and

conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are

added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2)

may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the (agency or

applicant) must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the

Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]

When the preliminary biological opinion finds jeopardy or adverse modification without a

reasonable and prudent alternative, the introductory statement is as follows:

The biological opinion finds the proposed action will result in (likely jeopardy to the

species/destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat), and no reasonable

and prudent alternative can be identified. Any incidental taking is prohibited by

section 9 of the Act.

If listed plant species are present in the action area, the following special incidental take

provisions apply: 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 228 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-37

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. 

However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that

the Act prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed

endangered plants or the malicious damage of such plants on areas under Federal

jurisdiction, or the destruction of endangered plants on non-Federal areas in

violation of State law or regulation or in the course of any violation of a State

criminal trespass law. [Include citations to any applicable State laws.]

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

Incidental take statement when no take is anticipated (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service does not anticipate the proposed action will incidentally take any

(species).

Incidental take statement for a preliminary biological opinion of likely jeopardy when incidental

take is anticipated:

o For opinions with only one reasonable and prudent alternative:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that the reasonable and prudent alternative will be implemented.

o For opinions with more than one reasonable and prudent alternative, provide separate estimates

of anticipated take for each reasonable and prudent alternative, as appropriate:

The Service has developed the following incidental take statement based on the

premise that reasonable and prudent alternative number XX will be implemented.

Introductory statement for amount and extent of take (jeopardy or non-jeopardy opinion):

The Service anticipates (number of individuals or extent of habitat resulting from

take of (species)) could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The incidental

take is expected to be in the form of (harm, harass, kill, etc.). [Separately specify each

type of take anticipated.]

[Provide a concise summary of the analysis leading to this determination.]

 OR

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 229 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-38

The Service anticipates incidental take of (species) will be difficult to detect for the

following reason(s): [Incidental take of actual species numbers may be difficult to detect

when the species is wide-ranging; has small body size; finding a dead or impaired specimen

is unlikely; losses may be masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes

(e.g., oxygen depletions for aquatic species); or the species occurs in habitat (e.g., caves)

that makes detection difficult]. However, the following level of take of this species can

be anticipated by loss of [quantify amount of surrogate species, food, cover, other

essential habitat element such as water quantity or quality, or symbiont] because: [provide

an explanation].

When take of listed migratory birds (including the bald eagle) will result from the actions under

consultation:

The Fish and Wildlife Service will not refer the incidental take of any

migratory bird or bald eagle for prosecution under the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), or the Bald and

Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d), if

such take is in compliance with the terms and conditions (including amount

and/or number) specified herein.

Standard paragraph for incidental take of marine mammals: [If the incidental take is not

authorized under MMPA 101(a)(5):]

The Service is not including an incidental take authorization for marine mammals at

this time because the incidental take of marine mammals has not been authorized

under section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or its 1994

Amendments. Following issuance of such regulations or authorizations, the Service

may amend this preliminary biological opinion to include an incidental take

statement for marine mammals, as appropriate.

After area-specific or activity-specific regulations have taken effect:

Pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended in

1994, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR §18.27, and 50 CFR §216 and §229,

the following measures are required to be consistent with the total taking allowable

under the MMPA authorization and to effect the least practical adverse impact on

the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses:

[Cite measures identified in specific regulations and/or letters of authorization or permits

for commercial fishing]. Pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act,

the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 230 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-39

minimize take: [Go on to list the measures, followed by the standard paragraph for

terms and conditions.]

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

The following statement should be made when the preliminary biological opinion finds likely

jeopardy/adverse modification, and no reasonable and prudent alternative is available: 

Because the proposed action is (1) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

(species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, and 

(2) no reasonable and prudent alternatives have been identified, any incidental take

resulting from the proposed action would be prohibited.

If the proposed action is not likely to result in jeopardy/adverse modification:

In the accompanying preliminary biological opinion, the Service determined that

this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

If the opinion contains reasonable and prudent alternatives:

In the accompanying preliminary biological opinion, the Service determined that

this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat when (one of) the reasonable

and prudent alternative(s) is implemented.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES (as appropriate)

Standardized introductory paragraph for reasonable and prudent measures for species other than

marine mammals and migratory birds:

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure(s) are necessary

and appropriate to minimize take of (species): [Go on to list these measures and

provide a brief discussion documenting the Service's analysis of the biological need for,

and reasonableness of, these measures.]

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Standardized introductory paragraph for terms and conditions:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 231 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-40

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the (agency) must

comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and

prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring

requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

[Go on to list these terms and conditions, including the requirements for monitoring,

reporting, review, and disposition of any specimens.] 

Salvage of specimens and/or habitat data included as a term and condition (as appropriate)

Closing Paragraph:

The Service believes that no more than (number or extent) of (species) will be

incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable and prudent

measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the

impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. The

Service believes that no more than (number or extent) of (species) will be incidentally

taken. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such

incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and

review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must

immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the

Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

Closing statement, if take is anticipated:

Because the proposed action is likely to result in the taking of listed species incidental

to that action, the Service has included an incidental take statement pursuant to

section 7(b)(4) of the Act. However, because this is an early consultation on the

prospective action, this incidental take statement does not eliminate the (agency's) or

the (applicant's) liability under the taking prohibitions of section 9 of the Act.

Instead, this statement provides your agency and the applicant with foreknowledge of

the terms and conditions that will be required if this prospective application is filed

with your agency. These reasonable and prudent measures and implementing terms

and conditions become effective only after the Service confirms the preliminary

biological opinion as a final biological opinion on the prospective action.

CONFERENCE REPORT/CONFERENCE NOTICE (as appropriate)

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 232 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-41

Introductory paragraph:

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered

and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency

activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or

critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

Closing paragraph:

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse

effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of

the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

REINITIATION NOTICE

The following closing paragraph is used:

This concludes early consultation for the (action). You may ask the Service to confirm

this preliminary biological opinion as a final biological opinion on the prospective action

once you receive the permit application from the prospective applicant. The request must

be in writing. If the Service reviews the proposed action and finds that there are no

significant changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the early

consultation, it will confirm the preliminary biological opinion as a final biological opinion

on the project and no further section 7 consultation will be necessary except when one of

the following criteria for reinitiation is met: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is

exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed

species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3)

the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect on the listed species

or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or

critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. When the amount or extent

of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending

reinitiation.

If the Service does not confirm this preliminary biological opinion as a final

biological opinion on the prospective action, the (agency) is required to initiate

formal consultation with the Service.

LITERATURE CITED

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 233 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-42

Sample letter to prospective applicants about the availability of early consultation rights.

(date)

Dear _______:

This responds to your letter of __________ , ____, concerning the upcoming proposed

experimental use of ____________. This agricultural chemical was previously used in [State]

under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Experimental Use Permit (EUP) ___-

EUP-__ _.

We have enclosed a general list of all endangered, threatened, and proposed species in [State],

organized by county, for planning purposes. When specific test plots have been designated, EPA

should consult with this office pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (ESA), prior to the issuance of the EUP for _________. 

The enclosed list constitutes technical assistance only. It does not fulfill EPA's requirements

pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; only EPA or their non-Federal designee can fulfill those

requirements. By copy of this letter, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is being made aware of

their responsibility to consult with the FWS to insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or

carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We hope the resulting dialogue between

EPA and the FWS will provide registrants and permittees with better guidance on compliance

with the Endangered Species Act. If EPA chooses not to consult, the FWS cannot be certain that

EPA and you, as the project proponent, have complied with the provisions of the ESA.

Nevertheless, you should be aware that, pursuant to section 7(a)(3) of the ESA, you have certain

opportunities as an applicant for a Federal permit or license. Section 7(a)(3) and implementing

regulations at 50 C.F.R. §402.11 establish an optional process called "early consultation," which

was specifically designed to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between listed species or critical

habitat and prospective actions such as yours.

Copies of the specific regulations pertaining to early consultations are enclosed. If you have

reason to believe that your proposal, which will eventually be included in an application for

Federal agency approval, may affect listed species or critical habitat, you can ask the Federal

agency issuing a permit or license (in this case it is EPA) to enter into early consultation with the

FWS.

Although early consultation would be between EPA and the FWS, your office must be involved

in the process if you elect to request EPA to initiate early consultation with the FWS. Your

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 234 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-43

request for EPA to initiate early consultation with the FWS must be in writing and must certify

that: (1) you have a definitive proposal outlining your action and its effects, and (2) that you

intend to carry out your proposal if it is authorized. When EPA receives your proposal, they are

required by the ESA to initiate early consultation with the FWS.

If you have questions regarding our comments, please contact [Biologist] at [office and telephone

number]

Sincerely yours,

Field Supervisor

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 235 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-44

Outline of an emergency consultation package, including standardized statements

Address

Salutation

Introductory Paragraph:

This document transmits the (Fish and Wildlife Service's/National Marine Fisheries

Service's) biological opinion based on the Service's review of the (name or designation

for the action) located in (County, State, and Marine Area as appropriate), and the

emergency consultation on the effects of that action on (species) in accordance with

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Your (date) request for formal consultation was received on (date).

 

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the (date) biological

assessment (or other title), the (date) draft environmental assessment (or

environmental impact statement), the (date) project proposal, telephone conversations

of (dates) with (names), field investigations, and other sources of information. A

complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in (this office/elsewhere).

Consultation History

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Conservation Measures

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (rangewide and/or recovery unit)

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE (in the action area)

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

[Document previous Service recommendations]

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 236 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-45

Introduction:

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions

that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological

opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not

considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to

section 7 of the Act.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of (species), the environmental baseline for the

action area [use if different from the range of the species], the effects of the (action) and

the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the (action), as

implemented, (is/is not) likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the (species), and

(is/is not) likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. [If no critical

habitat has been designated for the species or the action will not affect designated critical

habitat, use one of the following statements.] No critical habitat has been designated for

this species, therefore, none will be affected. -OR- Critical habitat for this species has

been designated at (location), however, this action does not affect that area and no

destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is anticipated.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES (as appropriate)

[Include only if further action can restore/enhance species/critical habitat to a level below the

jeopardy/adverse modification threshold.]

Introductory Paragraph:

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 of the Act define reasonable and

prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that:

(1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the

action; (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency's legal

authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically feasible; and (4)

would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence

of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Introductory paragraph:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 237 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-46

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act 

prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without 

special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,

kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is

further defined by FWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation

that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by

FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed

species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is

defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an

otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),

taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not

considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in

compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

CONFERENCE REPORT/CONFERENCE NOTICE (as appropriate)

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Include recommendations that may help protect listed species and their habitats in future

emergency situations or initiate beneficial actions that can be taken to conserve the species.

Introductory paragraph:

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to

further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the

benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are

discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed

action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to

develop information. 

Closing paragraph:

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding

adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests

notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 238 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-47

REINITIATION NOTICE

None, if discretionary Federal agency involvement has terminated.

LITERATURE CITED

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 239 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-48

FWS Emergency consultation notification memorandum to the Regional Office (optional).

(date)

Memorandum

To: Assistant Regional Director, ________

From: Field Supervisor, [name of Field Office]

Subject: Emergency Consultation on [name of Federal action].

This office has completed an informal emergency consultation. The following information

summarizes the location of the emergency, nature of the emergency, listed species and critical

habitat(s) involved, and how those species and habitats are likely to be affected by the emergency.

Date of Contact: Time:

Contact(s) Name:

Agency:

Contact(s) Title:

Nature of the Emergency:

Species/Critical Habitats in the Area:

Anticipated Effects:

Recommendations Given the Contact:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 240 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-49

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

[Note: This form provides the outline of information needed for intra-Service consultation. If additional

space is needed, attach additional sheets, or set up this form to accommodate your responses.]

Originating Person: ________________________

Telephone Number: ________________________

Date: ________________________

I. Region:

II. Service Activity (Program)

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area

C. Candidate species within the action area:

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map.

IV. Geographic area or station name and action:

V. Location (attach map):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name:

B. County and State:

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude):

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town:

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 241 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-50

VI. Description of proposed action (attach additional pages as needed):

VII. Determination of effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III. A,

B, and C (attach additional pages as needed):

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

VIII. Effect determination and response requested: [* = optional]

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat:

Determination Response requested

no effect/no adverse modification

(species:__________________________________) ____*Concurrence

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat

(species: __________________________________) ____Concurrence

may affect, and is likely to adversely 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat

(species: __________________________________) ____Formal

Consultation

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat:

Determination Response requested

no effect on proposed species/no adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat

(species: __________________________________) ____*Concurrence

is likely to jeopardize proposed species/

adversely modify proposed critical habitat

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 242 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-51

(species: __________________________________) ____Conference

C. Candidate species:

Determination Response requested

no effect

(species: __________________________________) ____*Concurrence

is likely to jeopardize candidate species

(species: __________________________________) ____Conference

____________________________ ______

__

signature date

[Title/office of supervisor at originating station]

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation:

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_________________________ ______

___

signature date

[Title/office of reviewing official]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 243 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-52

INSTRUCTIONS

Originating Person: The person(s) or unit (field office, refuge, program) proposing an action

for which the Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form is being prepared.

Date: Date the information on the form was finalized.

I. Region: The Region in which the proposed action will occur.

II. Service activity: The Service program initiating the proposed action.

III. Pertinent species and habitat.

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area: The action area

includes the immediate area where the proposed action will occur, as well as any other

areas where direct or indirect impacts of the action may be expected. For example, effects

of an action in the headwaters of a stream may affect endangered fish that occur 20 miles

downstream. A compilation of listed species or critical habitats that possibly occur in the

action area may be generated by the Project Leader, or it may be requested from the

appropriate ESO.

Note: All experimental populations of listed species are treated as threatened species. 

However, for the purposes of intra-Service section 7 consultation, they are treated as

species proposed for listing if they occur off National Wildlife Refuge or National Park

System lands and they are classed as "non-essential" experimental populations.

List all threatened and endangered species and critical habitat that may be affected by the

proposed action. An effect exists even if only one individual or habitat segment may be

affected. Consider both beneficial and adverse effects, regardless of their magnitude.

It is necessary to list all threatened and endangered species and critical habitats in the

action area that will not be affected at any level of significance. This informs the reviewer

that such species have been considered.

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: Lists of

proposed species and critical habitat that could occur in the action area may be generated

by the project leader or may be requested from the appropriate ESO.

List all species and habitats in the action area for which a proposed listing rule (but not a final

rule) or proposed critical habitat designation has been published in the Federal Register. The list

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 244 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-53

should include not only proposed species that may be affected, but also those that will not be

affected. Use the same consideration as in Item III (A) above.

C. Candidate species within the action area: Service actions shall include consideration of

candidate species as though proposed for listing. Lists of candidate species that could occur in

the action area may be generated by the project leader or may be requested from the appropriate

ESO.

List all candidate species that may be affected by the proposed action. Because listing candidates

may be added to, or dropped from, candidate species lists between the typically biannual printings

of the Notice of Review, it is necessary to check candidate lists with the appropriate ESO.

Include in the list of candidate species in the action area those that will not be affected by the

proposed action.

IV. Geographic area or station name and action:

Briefly describe the proposed action and where it will occur. (For example: The proposed action

is to directly stock, or transfer to the State of X for stocking, channel catfish and smallmouth

bass. These stockings would occur in both Blue Water and Minnow River drainages). A more

detailed description of the proposed action will be presented under Section VI.

V. Location (attach map):

In addition to the following four specific descriptions, it is vital to attach a map(s). The reviewer

may not be familiar with the project area and will need the maps to precisely relate the proposed

project to the affected species. Maps should depict, preferably in large scale, the exact locations

of project elements. The maps should include section, township, and range, or latitude and

longitude. Topographic maps are preferred, with the action area depicted on them.

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Self-explanatory

B. County and State: Self-explanatory.

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude):

Locate the project area as precisely as possible. If the action is stocking a small stock

tank, the descriptor should include at least quarter section and preferably quarter/quarter

section. For scattered project sites, such as in fish stocking, a location should be given for

each site.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 245 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-54

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Self-explanatory.

E. Species/habitat occurrence: Depict on the location map the species and habitat

occurrences.

VI. Description of proposed action:

What is the purpose of this proposed action and how do you plan to accomplish it? 

Describe the project area as well as the project. These descriptions should be detailed

enough so that the reviewer can fully understand what the components of the action

include and how the project will affect the species. Do not assume that the reviewing

office will understand procedures that are taken for granted within your program. Details

can be provided here, or by attaching copies of project plans, management plans, stocking

schedules, or other project documents. National Environmental Protection Act documents

are usually helpful attachments. Sketches or blueprints of the proposed action should be

attached. Proposed project dates should be provided. Attach a biological assessment if

the project is considered a "major construction activity." Include any measures agreed to

through informal consultation to reduce any adverse impacts.

VII. Determination of effects

A. Explanation of effects of the action:

Discuss either the effects of the action on each listed, proposed, or candidate species and

critical habitat in the action area, or why those species or critical habitats will not be

affected. For species or critical habitats affected by the proposed action, provide the

following information: [Note: candidate species will have no proposed critical habitat.]

1. Status of species in action area; is it native (natural and/or stocked) or non-native

in the action area? Include population and/or distribution trends (provide survey

information).

2. Species habitat in the action area and its significance to spawning, feeding,

migratory habits (or behavior), cover, roost, etc. Is the area currently occupied or

unoccupied historic range for the species?

3. Impacts of the proposed action on species and/or critical habitat, including direct,

indirect, interdependent, interrelated, and cumulative impacts.

4. Quantification of effects - acres of habitat, miles of habitat, number of individuals, etc.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 246 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-55

5. Summary of effects - include the basis for your conclusion - best judgment, literature,

citations, studies, etc.

B. Describe, if known, project modifications that would promote the conservation of

the affected species. Project modification ideas may be found in recovery plans. 

Although section 7 of Act prohibits only those actions by Federal agencies which are

likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, the Service has a

commitment to recovering listed species and trying to prevent the need to list 

additional species.

VIII. Effect determination and response requested:

Enter the species in the appropriate determination. For each determination, place an X on the

response requested.

A. Listed species/critical habitat:

No effect/no adverse modification. This conclusion is reached if the proposed action and its

interrelated and interdependent actions will not directly or indirectly affect listed species or

destroy/adversely modify designated critical habitat. Formal section 7 consultation is not

required when the no effect conclusion is reached. However, a request for the optional written

concurrence is encouraged to facilitate a complete administrative record.

May Affect, but is not likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical habitat. 

This conclusion is appropriate when effects to the species or critical habitat are expected to be

beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive

effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the

size of the impact (and should never reach the scale where take occurs), while discountable

effects are those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would

not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect

discountable effects to occur. If the ESO concurs in writing with the Project Leader's

determination of "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or critical habitat, the intraService section 7 consultation process is completed.

If formal section 7 consultation is required for other species affected by this proposed

action, then it may be easier and less confusing to fold the "is not likely to adversely

effect" concurrence into the formal section 7 consultation rather than doing a separate

concurrence.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 247 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-56

May affect, and is likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical habitat. 

This conclusion is reached if any adverse effect to listed species or critical habitat may

occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed Service action or its interrelated or

interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable or insignificant (see definition of

"is not likely to adversely affect". In the event the overall effect of the proposed action is

beneficial to the listed species or critical habitat, but may also cause some adverse effect

on individuals of the listed species or segments of the critical habitat, then the

determination should be "is likely to adversely affect." Such a determination requires

formal section 7 consultation.

Example: A refuge proposes prescribed burning for a prairie remnant to improve

the habitat for the endangered Karner blue butterfly. The burn will substantially

improve the habitat for the species and promote its recovery in subsequent years. 

However, individual Karner blue butterfly eggs and larvae will be killed during the

burn. Even though the net effect of the burn will be highly beneficial to the listed

species, the burn must be considered to have an adverse effect. A finding of "is

likely to adversely affect" is necessary.

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat:

No effect on proposed species/no adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 

This conclusion is reached if the proposed action and its interrelated and interdependent

actions will not directly or indirectly affect proposed species or destroy or adversely

modify proposed critical habitat. A request for the optional written concurrence is

encouraged.

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical habitat. 

For proposed species and proposed critical habitats, the Service is required to evaluate

whether the proposed Service action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

proposed species or adversely modify an area proposed for designation as critical habitat. 

If this conclusion is reached, a section 7 conference is required. If this conclusion is

reached, intra-Service conference is required. 

C. Candidate species:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 248 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-57

No effect on candidate species. This conclusion is reached if the proposed action and its

interrelated and interdependent actions will not directly or indirectly affect candidate

species. A request for the optional written concurrence is encouraged.

Is likely to jeopardize candidate species. For candidate species, the Service is required

to evaluate whether the proposed Service action is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the candidate species. If this conclusion is reached, intra-Service section 7

conference is required.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 249 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 APPENDIX C - EXAMPLES OF CONSULTATION

EXAMPLE NUMBER AGENCY TYPE OF CONSULTATION

1 NMFS Reinitiation

2 NMFS Internal

3 NMFS Informal

4 NMFS Jeopardy

5 NMFS & FWS Joint NMFS & FWS: 

 Combined Biological 

 Opinion and Conference 

 Opinion

6 FWS Stand Alone Conference

7 FWS Intra-Service

8 FWS Intra-Service w/ 

 Conference

9 FWS No Jeopardy w/ 

 Incidental Take + Plants

10 FWS Conference on 

 Incremental

11 FWS Early

12 FWS Emergency

13 FWS Sample Administrative 

 Record

[Note: These are not available in electronic format.]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 250 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX D - FWS SOLICITOR OPINIONS

Secretarial Memoranda

S-1 Office of Hearings and Appeals Authority on Biological Opinions Issued by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Manuel

Lujan January 7, 1993.

S-2 Reaffirmation of above from Bruce Babbitt. April 20, 1993.

Solicitor Opinions

NOTE: Included in this appendix are two lists (SO-A and SO-B) of legal opinions on

sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Endangered Species Act, reviewed for a recent FOIA request.

SO-A Opinions released to the requestors as public documents. These documents may be

released to the public.

SO-B Opinions that were, and are NOT to be, released to the public. If copies of any of

these opinions are needed, requests should be sent through the Regional Office.

SO-1 Fish and Wildlife Service Regulations Defining "Harm" under Section 9 of the

Endangered Species Act. April 17, 1981.

SO-2 HUD Delegation of Endangered Species Act Consultation Requirements. June 9,

1981.

SO-3 Cumulative Effects to be considered Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act. August 27, 1981.

SO-4 Request for Legal Opinion Concerning Section 7 Consultation for Mining Claim

Land Patented by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) March 1, 1990.

SO-5 The Legal Sufficiency of the Biological Opinion for Inner-Perimeter Road, Lowndes

County, Georgia. July 9, 1992.

SO-6 Permitted Incidental Take of Migratory Birds Listed Under the Endangered Species

Act. February 9, 1996 memo with attached February 5, 1996, opinion.

SO-7 Conner v. Burford, January 13, 1988.

[Note: These opinions are not available in electronic format.]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 251 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX E - FWS INTRA-SERVICE CONSULTATION HANDBOOK

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 252 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

 FINAL INTRA-SERVICE CONSULTATION HANDBOOK

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

WASHINGTON D.C.

 MARCH 1998

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 253 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

GOALS .................................................... E-2

LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES INFORMATION . . E-3

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ACTIONS ...................... E-3

GLOSSARY ................................................ E-6

BASIC PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................ E-17

OTHER INTRA-SERVICE CONSULTATION CONSIDERATIONS ... E-23

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Examples of Step-By-Step Procedures for Intra-Service

Section 7 Concurrence, Formal Consultation, and Conference ...... E-25

Appendix 2 - Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form

With Instructions ........................................ E-28

FIGURE

E-1. Intra-Service Consultation or Conference Process ............ E-18

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 254 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-2

GOALS

Internal Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) actions involving listed, proposed, and candidate

species will promote the conservation of those species to the greatest extent practical under

Federal law. Use the Service's Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation as the

overlying theme during the internal consultation process. Although including candidate

species is not required by law, it is Service policy to consider candidate species when making

natural resource decisions. Therefore, candidate species will be considered for all intraService consultations. This species conservation will be accomplished by ensuring that

Service-sponsored, authorized, or funded programs:

o use the best scientific and commercial information available for all section 7 evaluations,

including approved recovery plans, to assist Service decision makers; 

o provide the benefit of the doubt to the species if important scientific data are lacking;

o ensure adequate protection through a buffer (degree of safety to the species) so that

subsequent chance or recurring events (e.g., drought, fire, flooding, hurricanes, chemical

spills, etc.) are not allowed to jeopardize the continued existence of these species;

o promote and expand the species' opportunities for survival and recovery;

o involve State and tribal fish and wildlife agencies in the intra-Service consultation process

by keeping them informed of proposed Federal actions undergoing consultation, by

obtaining information from the State and tribal agencies in the preparation of Biological

Opinions, and by recommending that Federal agencies provide State and tribal agencies

copies of Biological Opinions; and

o apply Secretary Babbitt's "Ten Principles for Federal Endangered Species Act Policy"

 1. Base decisions on sound and objective science

 2. Minimize social and economic impacts

 3. Provide quick, responsive answers and certainty to landowners

 4. Treat landowners fairly and with consideration

 5. Create incentives for landowners to conserve species

 6. Make effective use of limited public and private resources by focusing on groups of

species dependent on the same habitat

 7. Prevent species from becoming endangered or threatened

 8. Promptly recover and de-list threatened and endangered species

 9. Promote efficiency and consistency

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 255 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 In this handbook, "ESO" includes the Regional or Washington Office Division of 1

Endangered Species for intra-Service consultations conducted at those levels.

E-3

10. Provide State, tribal and local governments with opportunities to play a greater role

in carrying out the Endangered Species Act (Act).

LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE

SPECIES INFORMATION

Knowledge of what species occur in an action area, including information on their life

histories, is integral to an intra-Service section 7 consultation. Ecological Services Offices

(ESOs ) are responsible for providing lists of endangered, threatened, proposed, and 1

candidate species and critical habitats to Service programs within their jurisdictions. Other

Service units with responsibility for managing proposed and candidate species (e.g., Refuges,

Fish Hatcheries) are responsible for keeping ESO information bases updated for their lead

species and critical habitats.

The Washington Office Division of Endangered Species will ensure that Regional Office

endangered species programs are furnished regularly with updated lists of endangered,

threatened, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat designations. Regional Office

endangered species programs will provide these lists to all Regional and Field Office programs

on a regular basis. Additional species information, such as known species distributions and

biological requirements, may be obtained from the ESOs with lead responsibilities for that

species. The above responsibilities of the ESOs and other Service units do not remove Project

Leaders from the responsibility to assess which listed, proposed, and candidate species occur

within action areas, as well as any proposed or designated critical habitat.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ACTIONS

Following are examples of Service actions that may be subject to intra-Service section 7

consultation:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 256 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Service activities such as research, marking, moving, and harassing that directly take 2

endangered and threatened species may require a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. This permit is

subject to section 7 review and may require the issuance of a biological opinion, especially if

takings are involved.

E-4

Ecological Services

Endangered species recovery plan implementation

Endangered Species Act section 10 permits 2

Endangered species Safe Harbor Agreements

Endangered species Habitat Conservation Plans

Farm Bill activities

Partners for Wildlife

Contaminant cleanup, spills, response activities, remedial actions

Superfund activities

Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits applications may include species that are not Service listed,

proposed or candidate species. In this situation, the biologist conducting the consultation will

assess these species in the same way as candidate species, that is, as if they were proposed for

listing. They should be included in the incidental take permit, however, only if there is

adequate information about the species to determine what the specific project-related effects

will be. 

Fisheries

Endangered species recovery plan implementation

Fisheries and Wildlife Assistance projects

Hatchery operations, endangered species projects, fish stocking, land

acquisition, construction

Fish management plans

Federal Aid

Wildlife Restoration Act projects

Sportfish Restoration Act projects

Endangered Species Act Section 6 projects (programmatic)

Clean Vessel Act projects

National Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 257 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-5

projects

Partnerships for Wildlife Act projects

Refuges and Wildlife

Endangered species recovery plan implementation

Refuge operation and maintenance

Refuge habitat management and improvement projects, public use

programs, commercial activities, construction projects, land disposal

North American Waterfowl Management Plan activities

Pest control activities on refuge croplands

All

Information transfer (e.g., a Service publication on use of rotenone

 should caution against use where vulnerable listed or candidate species occur) if it

results in effects to listed species

Challenge grants

Partners in Flight

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 258 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-6

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 

CONSULTATIONS

The wording of these definitions has been modified slightly from the cited source to reflect an

internal Service consultation rather than a consultation between the Service and another

Federal agency.

Act - the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Action - all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or

in part, by the Service or upon the high seas. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a)

actions intended to conserve listed species or their habitat; (b) the promulgation of

regulations; (c) the granting of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits,

or grants-in-aid; or (d) actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the land, water,

or air. [50 CFR §402.02]

Action area - all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Service action and not

merely the immediate area involved in the action. [50 CFR §402.02]

Affect/effect - to affect (a verb) is to bring about a change ("The proposed action is likely to

adversely affect piping plovers nesting on the shoreline"). The effect (usually a noun) is the

result ("The proposed highway is likely to have the following effects on the Florida scrub

jay"). "Affect" appears throughout section 7 regulations and documents in the phrases "may

affect" and "likely to adversely affect." "Effect" appears throughout section 7 regulations

and documents in the phrases "adverse effects," "beneficial effects," "effects of the action,"

and "no effect." [Proper grammatical usage]

Anticipated/allowable/authorized - in incidental take statements, the Service determines the

amount or extent of incidental take "anticipated" (expected) due to the proposed action or an

action modified by reasonable and prudent alternatives. When writing incidental take

statements, use only the phrase "anticipated" rather than "allowable" or "authorized," as the

Service does not allow or authorize (formally permit) incidental take under section 7. 

[Clarification of usage]

Applicant - any person (an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any

other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the

Federal Government, of any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any

foreign government; any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State; or any other

entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) [ESA §3(12)] who requires formal

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 259 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-7

approval or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting the action. 

[50 CFR §402.02]

Appreciably diminish the value - to considerably reduce the capability of designated or

proposed critical habitat to satisfy requirements essential to both the survival and recovery of

a listed species. [Clarification of usage]

Best available scientific and commercial data - to assure the quality of the biological,

ecological, and other information used in the implementation of the Act, it is the policy of the

Service to: (1) evaluate all scientific and other information used to ensure that it is reliable,

credible, and represents the best scientific and commercial data available; (2) gather and

impartially evaluate biological, ecological, and other information disputing official positions,

decisions, and actions proposed or taken by the Service; (3) document their evaluation of

comprehensive, technical information regarding the status and habitat requirements for a

species throughout its range, whether it supports or does not support a position being

proposed as an official agency position; (4) use primary and original sources of information as

the basis for recommendations; (5) retain these sources referenced in the official document as

part of the administrative record supporting an action; (6) collect, evaluate, and complete all

reviews of biological, ecological, and other relevant information within the schedules

established by the Act, appropriate regulations, and applicable policies; and (7) require

management-level review of documents developed and drafted by Service biologists to verify

and assure the quality of the science used to establish official positions, decisions, and actions

taken by the Service during their implementation of the Act. [59 FR 34271 (July 1, 1994)]

Biological assessment - information prepared by the Service to determine whether a

proposed Service action is likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical

habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of species that are proposed for listing or are

candidates for listing; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Biological

assessments must be prepared for "major construction activities." The outcome of this

biological assessment determines whether formal consultation or a conference is necessary. 

[50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.12]

Biological opinion - document which includes: (1) the opinion of the Service as to whether

or not a Service action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or

result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat; (2) a summary

of the information on which the opinion is based; and (3) a detailed discussion of the effects of

the action on listed species or designated critical habitat. [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR

§402.14(h)]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 260 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-8

Candidate species - plant and animal taxa considered for possible addition to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Species. These are taxa for which the Service has on file

sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a

proposal to list, but issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing

actions. [61 FR 7596-7613 (February 28, 1996)]

Conference - a process of early intra-Service cooperation involving informal or formal

discussions between one program of the Service and another program of the Service pursuant

to section 7(a)(4) of the Act regarding the likely impact of a Service action on proposed

species, candidate species, or proposed critical habitat. Conferences are: (1) required for

proposed Service actions likely to jeopardize proposed species, candidate species, or destroy

or adversely modify proposed critical habitat; (2) designed to help Service programs identify

and resolve potential conflicts between an action and species conservation early in a project's

planning; and (3) to develop recommendations to minimize or avoid adverse effects to

proposed species, candidate species, or proposed critical habitat. [50 CFR §402.02, §402.10]

Conservation - the terms "conserve," "conserving" and "conservation" mean to use, and the

use of, all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or

threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the] Act are no

longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities

associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement,

habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in

the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be

otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking. [ESA §3(3)]

Conservation measures - are actions to benefit or promote the recovery of listed species that

are included by the Service as an integral part of the proposed Service action. These

conservation measures will be taken by the Service to minimize, or compensate for, project

effects on the species under review. These may include actions taken prior to the initiation of

consultation, or actions which the Service has committed to complete in a biological

assessment or similar document.

Conservation recommendations - the Services' non-binding suggestions resulting from

formal or informal consultation that: (1) identify discretionary measures Service programs can

take to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a proposed action on listed or proposed

species, candidate species, or to designated or proposed critical habitat; (2) identify studies,

monitoring, or research to develop new information on listed, proposed or candidate species,

or to designated or proposed critical habitat; and (3) include suggestions on how the Service

can assist species conservation, as part of their action and in furtherance of their authorities

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. [50 CFR §402.02]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 261 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-9

Constituent elements - physical and biological features of designated or proposed critical

habitat essential to the conservation of the species, including, but not limited to: (1) space for

individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,

minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for

breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats

that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographic and

ecological distributions of a species. [ESA §3(5)(A)(i), 50 CFR 424.12(b)]

Critical habitat - for listed species consists of: (1) the specific areas within the geographical

area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section

4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements)

(a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management

considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by

the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act,

upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the

species. [ESA §3 (5)(A)] Designated critical habitats are described in 50 CFR §17 and 226.

Cumulative effects - are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving

Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Service

action subject to consultation. [50 CFR §402.02] This definition applies only to section 7

analyses and should not be confused with the broader use of this term in the National

Environmental Policy Act or other environmental laws.

Designated non-Federal representative - the person, agency, or organization designated by

the Service as its representative to conduct informal consultation or prepare a biological

assessment. The non-Federal representative must be designated by giving written notice to

the Director. If a permit or license applicant is involved and is not the designated non-Federal

representative, then the applicant and the Service must agree on the choice of the designated

non-Federal representative. [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.08]

Destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat - a direct or indirect alteration that

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a

listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying

any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to

be critical. [50 CFR §402.02]

Director - the Service's regional director, or his/her respective authorized representative. [50

CFR §402.02]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 262 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-10

Distinct Population Segment - "population," or "distinct population segment," are terms

with specific meaning when used for listing, delisting, and reclassification purposes to describe

a discrete vertebrate stock that may be added or deleted from the list of endangered and

threatened species. The use of the term "distinct population segment" will be consistent with

the Services' population policy. [61 FR 4722-4725 (February 7, 1996)]

Early consultation - a preliminary consultation requested by the Service on behalf of a

prospective permit or license applicant prior to the filing of an application for a Service permit

or license. [50 CFR §402.11]

Effects of the action - the direct and indirect effects of a Service action on the species or

critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or

interdependent with that action. These effects are considered along with the environmental

baseline and the predicted cumulative effects to determine the overall effects to the species for

purposes of preparing a biological opinion on the proposed action. [50 CFR §402.02] The

environmental baseline covers past and present impacts of all Federal actions within the action

area. This includes the effects of existing Federal projects that have not yet come in for their

section 7 consultation. 

Endangered species - any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. [ESA §3(6)]

Environmental baseline - the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private

actions and other human activities in an action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed

Federal projects in an action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7

consultation, and the impact of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the

consultation in process. [50 CFR §402.02]

ESA - the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

FWS - the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Federal agency - any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. [ESA

§3(7)]

Fish or wildlife - any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any

mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which

protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile,

mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or

offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. [ESA §3(8)]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 263 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-11

Formal intra-Service consultation - a process between a Service program taking/authorizing

an action and another Service program affected by that action that: (1) determines whether a

proposed Service action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat; (2) begins with the Service program

taking the action providing a written request and submittal of a complete initiation package to

the affected Service program; and (3) concludes with the issuance of a biological opinion and

incidental take statement by the affected Service program. If a proposed Service action may

affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal intra-Service consultation is

required (except when the involved Service programs concur, in writing, that a proposed

action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat). [50 CFR

§402.02, 50 CFR §402.14]

Habitat Conservation Plan - Under section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a planning document

that is a mandatory component of an incidental take permit application, also known as a

Conservation Plan.

Incidental take - take of listed fish and wildlife species that results from, but is not the

purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a Federal agency or

applicant. [50 CFR §402.02]

Indirect effects - those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and

are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. [50 CFR §402.02]

Informal intra-Service consultation - an optional process that includes all discussions and

correspondence between Service programs, prior to formal intra-Service consultation, to

determine whether a proposed Service action may affect listed species or critical habitat. This

process allows the Service to utilize it's in-house expertise to evaluate a Service program's

assessment of potential effects or to suggest possible modifications to the proposed action

which could avoid potentially adverse effects. If a proposed Service action may affect listed

species or designated critical habitat, formal intra-Service consultation is required (except

when the involved Service programs concur, in writing, that a proposed action "is not likely to

adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat). [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR

§402.13]

Interdependent actions - actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed

action. [50 CFR §402.02]

Interrelated actions - actions that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action

for their justification. [50 CFR §402.02]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 264 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-12

Is likely to adversely affect - the appropriate finding in a biological assessment (or

conclusion during informal consultation) if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as a

direct or indirect result of the proposed Service action or its interrelated or interdependent

actions, and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of "is not

likely to adversely affect"). In the event the overall effect of the proposed Service action is

beneficial to the listed species, but is also likely to cause some adverse effects, then the

proposed Service action "is likely to adversely affect" the listed species. If incidental take is

anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action, an "is likely to adversely affect"

determination should be made. An "is likely to adversely affect" determination requires the

initiation of formal intra-Service section 7 consultation. [Clarification of usage]

Is likely to jeopardize proposed or candidate species/adversely modify proposed critical

habitat - the appropriate conclusion when the Service identifies situations where the

proposed Service action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed

for listing or a candidate species, or adversely modify an area proposed for designation as

critical habitat. If this conclusion is reached, intra-Service conference is required.

Is not likely to adversely affect - the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species

are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are

contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species. Insignificant

effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. 

Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a

person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant

effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur. [Clarification of usage]

Jeopardize the continued existence of - to engage in an action that reasonably would be

expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and

recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution

of that species. [50 CFR §402.02]

Letter - refers to all written correspondence, such as letters, memoranda, or electronic mail

messages relating to a formal or informal consultation. [Clarification of usage]

Listed species - any species of fish, wildlife or plant which has been determined to be

endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. [50 CFR §402.02]

Major construction activity - a construction project (or other undertaking having similar

physical effects) which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) [50 CFR §402.02].

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 265 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-13

May affect - the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on

listed species or designated critical habitat. When the Federal agency (in this case the Service)

proposing the action determines that a "may affect" situation exists, then the Service must

then either initiate formal consultation or seek written concurrence from the involved Service

programs that the action "is not likely to adversely affect" [see definition above] listed species.

[Clarification of usage]

Minor change rule - when preparing incidental take statements, the Service must specify

reasonable and prudent measures and their implementing terms and conditions to minimize the

impacts of incidental take that do not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or

timing of the action, and that involve only minor changes. [50 CFR §402.14]

No effect - the appropriate conclusion when the Service determines that a proposed Service

action will not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat. [Clarification of usage]

Occupied critical habitat - critical habitat that contains individuals of the species at the time

of the project analysis. A species does not have to occupy critical habitat throughout the year

for the habitat to be considered occupied (e.g. migratory birds). Subsequent events affecting

the species may result in this habitat becoming unoccupied. [Clarification of usage]

Plant - any member of the plant kingdom, including seeds, roots, and other parts thereof. 

[ESA §3(14)]

Population - "population" or "distinct population segment" are terms with specific meaning

when used for listing, delisting, and reclassification purposes to describe a discrete vertebrate

stock that may be added or deleted from the list of endangered and threatened species. The

term "population" will be confined to those distinct population segments officially listed, or

eligible for listing, consistent with section 4(a) of the Act and the Service's population policy. 

[61 FR 4722-4725 (February 7, 1996)]

Preliminary biological opinion - the opinion issued as a result of early consultation. [50

CFR §402.02]

Programmatic consultation - consultation addressing the Service's multiple actions on a

program, regional or other basis. [Clarification of usage]

Project Leader - the first line supervisor and/or manager of the projects or programs under a

specific area of Service responsibility.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 266 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-14

Proposed critical habitat - habitat proposed in the Federal Register to be designated as

critical habitat, or habitat proposed to be added to an existing critical habitat designation,

under section 4 of the Act for any listed or proposed species. [50 CFR §402.02]

Proposed species - any species of fish, wildlife or plant that is proposed in the Federal

Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. [50 CFR §402.02]

Reasonable and prudent alternatives - recommended alternative actions identified during

formal intra-Service consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the

intended purpose of the action, that can be implemented consistent with the scope of the

Service's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible,

and that the Director believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued

existence of listed species or the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical

habitat. [50 CFR §402.02]

Reasonable and prudent measures - actions identified during formal intra-Service

consultation the Director believes necessary or appropriate to minimize the impacts, i.e.,

amount or extent, of incidental take. [50 CFR §402.02]

Recovery - improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no

longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. [50 CFR §402.02]

Recovery unit - management subsets of the listed species that are created to establish

recovery goals or carrying out management actions. To lessen confusion in the context of

section 7 and other Endangered Species Act activities, a subset of an animal or plant species

that needs to be identified for recovery management purposes will be called a "recovery unit"

instead of a "population." [Clarification of usage]

Section 4 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, outlining

procedures and criteria for: (1) identifying and listing threatened and endangered species; (2)

identifying, designating, and revising critical habitat; (3) developing and revising recovery

plans; and (4) monitoring species removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. 

[ESA §4]

Section 7 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, outlining

procedures for interagency cooperation to conserve Federally listed species and designated

critical habitats. Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to further

the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with

the Services to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing

actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 267 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-15

modify designated critical habitat. Other paragraphs of this section establish the requirement

to conduct conferences on proposed species and candidate species; allow applicants to initiate

early consultation; require FWS and NMFS to prepare biological opinions and issue incidental

take statements. Section 7 also establishes procedures for seeking exemptions from the

requirements of section 7(a)(2) from the Endangered Species Committee. [ESA §7]

Section 7 consultation - the various section 7 processes, including both consultation and

conference if proposed or candidate species are involved. [50 CFR §402]

Section 9 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that prohibits the

taking of endangered species of fish and wildlife. Additional prohibitions include: (1) import

or export of endangered species or products made from endangered species; (2) interstate or

foreign commerce in listed species or their products; and (3) possession of unlawfully taken

endangered species. [ESA §9]

Section 10 - the section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that provides

exceptions to section 9 prohibitions. The exceptions most relevant to section 7 consultations

are takings allowed by two kinds of permits issued by the Service: (1) scientific take permits

and (2) incidental take permits. The Service can issue permits to take listed species for

scientific purposes, or to enhance the propagation or survival of listed species. The Service

can also issue permits to take listed species incidental to otherwise legal activity. [ESA §10]

Service - the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Species - includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population

segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. [ESA

§3(16)]

Survival - For determination of jeopardy/adverse modification: the species' persistence as

listed or as a recovery unit, beyond the conditions leading to its endangerment, with sufficient

resilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerment. Said another way, survival

is the condition in which a species continues to exist into the future while retaining the

potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by a species with a sufficient 

population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of

sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists in an environment

providing all requirements for completion of the species' entire life cycle, including

reproduction, sustenance, and shelter. [Clarification of usage]

Take - to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt

to engage in any such conduct. [ESA §3(19)] Harm is further defined by the Service to

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 268 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-16

include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed

species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

Harass is defined by the Service as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species

to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are

not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. [50 CFR §17.3]

Threatened species - any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. [ESA §3(20)]

Unoccupied critical habitat - critical habitat not occupied (i.e., not permanently or

seasonally occupied) by the listed species at the time of the project analysis. The habitat may

be suitable, but the species has been extirpated from this portion of its range. Conversely,

critical habitat may have been designated in areas unsuitable for the species, but restorable to

suitability with proper management, if the area is necessary to either stabilize the population

or assure eventual recovery of a listed species. As recovery proceeds, this formerly

unoccupied habitat may become occupied.

Some designated, unoccupied habitat may never be occupied by the species, but was

designated because it is essential for conserving the species because it maintains factors

constituting the species' habitat. For example, critical habitat may be designated for an

upstream area maintaining the hydrology of the species' habitat downstream. [Clarification of

usage]

Wildlife - See "fish or wildlife".

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 269 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-17

BASIC PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The timeframes and data requirements in the following procedures are the same for all Federal

agencies, and follow the section 7 consultation regulations at 50 CFR §402, except that as an

internal policy established by the Director, Service actions shall include consideration of

candidate species as though proposed for listing.

Ask yourself the following:

(1) IS THERE A FEDERAL ACTION?

Federal actions include all activities or programs authorized, funded, carried out, or permitted

-- in whole or in part -- by Federal agencies in the United States or on the high seas. IntraService consultations may consider either individual actions or a Service program as a whole. 

However, a programmatic consultation will not substitute for an individual project

consultation, unless the programmatic analysis lays out the species-specific standards within

which all individual activities will be conducted.

Example of a non-Federal action: Within a Service unit, an inholding of private party is

undertaking an action affecting a listed, proposed, or candidate species pursuant to a private

interest in land over which Service has no control.

(2) ARE LISTED, PROPOSED, OR CANDIDATE SPECIES OR THEIR HABITAT

PRESENT?

The Project Leaders must first determine whether candidate species, proposed, or listed

species (or their habitats) occur -- or have the potential to occur -- in the action area. This

may be done by reviewing agency records, contacting knowledgeable sources (State agencies,

Natural Heritage Program offices, etc.), conducting surveys, and/or requesting a species list

from the appropriate ESO. The ESOs are the primary contacts for intra-Service section 7

consultation. Project Leaders may contact the appropriate ESO to begin informal section 7

consultation or conference on the proposed action. ESO responsibilities include conducting

informal section 7 consultation, assisting Project Leaders in evaluating effects of their

proposed and existing actions, responding to species information requests, responding to

concurrence requests, conducting informal conferences and issuing conference reports, and

preparing draft biological and conference opinions.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 270 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-18

Figure E-1. Intra-Service Consultation or Conference Process.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 271 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-19

(3) IS THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION

ACTIVITY?

Major construction activities include dams, buildings, pipelines, roads, water resource

developments, channel improvements, and other such projects that modify the physical

environment and that constitute major Federal actions. Major construction activities do not

include those activities that are exempted from NEPA review as a categorical exclusion for

the Service under 516 DM 2.3A(2). As a rule of thumb, if an Environmental Impact

Statement is required for the proposed action and construction-type impacts are involved, it is

considered a major construction activity.

3.a. Major construction activity

For major construction activities, the Project Leader is required to request a species list from

the ESO or submit a species list to the ESO for confirmation. When a species list is

requested, the ESO has 30 days to respond. The species list is effective for 90 days. If either

(1) listed, proposed, or candidate species and/or (2) proposed or designated critical habitat are

present or suspected to be present, the Project Leader is required to begin a biological

assessment. This assessment must be initiated within 90 days of receiving the list. It must be

completed, along with a determination of the likely effects (if any) of the action, within 180

days; otherwise, the species list must be updated.

If the Project Leader determines that a listed species or its habitat does not occur in the action

area, or does not have the potential to occur, and if the ESO concurs with that determination,

a biological assessment is not required and the intra-Service section 7 process ends.

A biological assessment is not required if only proposed or candidate species or proposed

critical habitat are present. However, a biological assessment is recommended for these

species so that the Service can be proactive in conserving candidate/proposed species or

proposed critical habitat, and an assessment will be required if the species is listed/critical

habitat is designated before or during implementation of the proposed action.

3.b. No major construction activity

Even if the action is not a major construction activity, intra-Service consultation may be

necessary. The Project Leader may initiate or continue informal consultation to determine if

formal consultation is required. The Project Leader may submit a species list for confirmation

or request a species list from the ESO. When the Project Leader determines that a listed

species or its habitat does not occur or potentially occur in the action area, the intra-Service

section 7 process ends.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 272 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-20

If a listed, proposed, or candidate species, its habitat, or proposed or designated critical

habitat is present, the Project Leader should determine whether the action "may affect" those

species or habitat or may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Completing the

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM (hereafter

referred to as "Service Evaluation Form" - see Appendix 2) will assist the Project Leader in

determining the potential effect of the proposed action.

(4) IS THERE A "MAY AFFECT" SITUATION?

The Service Evaluation Form or a biological assessment, as appropriate, is used for informal

analysis of all actions affecting species or critical habitat subject to intra-Service section 7

consultation. Review the instructions for this form for determinations of "no effect," "may

affect," "is not likely to adversely affect," and "is likely to adversely affect." 

In determining the potential effect of the action, the Project Leader needs to review enough

information on the species and its habitat to assess whether the action may affect the species'

population, reproductive capability, food supply, cover needs, pollinators, symbionts,

predators/competitors, or other such biological factors. For designated or proposed critical

habitat, the assessment should address the potential effect on important components of the

critical habitat (some of which are identified as constituent elements) and the conservation role

of the critical habitat unit.

When the Project Leader determines that the proposed action will have "no effect" on the

listed, proposed, or candidate species or its habitat and will not destroy or adversely modify

proposed or designated critical habitat, the intra-Service consultation/conference process

ends. Concurrence from the ESO is not required, but if the ESO is aware of and disagrees

with the no effect determination, a memorandum outlining the disagreement and requesting

continued intra-Service consultation/conference will be provided to the Project Leader. If a

high level of sensitivity or controversy is associated with the action or the species, written

concurrence from the ESO is recommended.

Project Leaders should use the informal consultation process whenever possible. The Service

Evaluation Form should be completed for this purpose. As required of all other Federal

agencies, the Service program (i.e., Refuges, Federal Aid, Ecological Services, Fisheries,

Management Assistance, Endangered Species, etc.) that initiates a new action or continues an

existing activity is responsible for obtaining the best scientific and commercial information

available to complete the intra-Service consultation. Much of the information may already be

available through the ESO. The intra-Service consultation may require surveys in the project

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 273 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-21

area to determine species' presence and status, seasonal use pattern, condition of the species'

habitat, juxtaposition to the action/activity, etc.

(5) WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR "MAY AFFECT" SITUATIONS?

When the Project Leader determines the action "may affect" a listed species, a designated or

proposed critical habitat, or proposed or candidate species, the options are (1) to continue

informal consultation with the ESO or (2) to initiate formal consultation or conference. The

"may affect" evaluation looks not only at effects on the entire species or local management

unit, but also considers the effect on individual members of the species. If even one individual

may be affected, the biologist must conclude that there is a "may affect" situation. Project

modifications agreed upon during informal consultation may result in a "no effect"

determination, thus eliminating the need for formal consultation or conference.

When the Project Leader finds that the proposed action may affect, but is "not likely to

adversely affect," listed, proposed, or candidate species, or designated or proposed critical

habitats, a request for concurrence with that finding is sent to the appropriate ESO. The

Project Leader can make such a finding only if all of the effects of the proposed action will be 

discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial (see definition of "is not likely to adversely

affect"). A copy of the Service Evaluation Form supporting the Project Leader's

determination should be forwarded to the appropriate ESO within 30 days of that

determination. The ESO will respond to the Project Leader's written request for concurrence

within 30 days of receiving the request. Concurrence with the "not likely to adversely affect"

finding completes the requirements for intra-Service section 7 consultation. If any adverse

effect or any incidental take of listed species or critical habitat is likely to occur, formal

consultation must be initiated; if any candidate or proposed species are likely to be

jeopardized and if proposed critical habitat may be adversely modified, then conference is

required.

Formal consultation must be conducted prior to issuing permits for the incidental take of listed

species, even for activities conducted during recovery efforts for these species. These permits

must include appropriate conditions to avoid or minimize incidental take, and to ensure the

disposition of any dead or injured specimens in a way that preserves their potential use in

other recovery activities.

(6) WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES FOR FORMAL CONSULTATION OR

FORMAL CONFERENCE?

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 274 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-22

Once an ESO receives a Project Leader's written request for a formal intra-Service

consultation or formal intra-Service conference, this stage of the process will be concluded

within 90 days. After the consultation or conference is concluded, a biological opinion or

conference report will be delivered by the ESO within an additional 45 days. Extensions are

available only by mutual agreement.

These timetables begin when the ESO receives a written request and all the information

needed to proceed. The information can be provided by means of (1) a Service Evaluation

Form, (2) a biological assessment, or (3) a report containing the following data: (a) a

description of the proposed action; (b) a description of the specific area that may be affected

by the proposed action; (c) a description of any listed, proposed, or candidate species, or any

designated or proposed critical habitat, that may be affected by the proposed action; (d) a

description of how the proposed action may affect these species or habitats and an analysis of

any cumulative effects in the action area; (e) relevant reports, including any environmental

impact statement, environmental assessment, or biological assessment prepared; (f) any other

relevant information available [taken from 50 CFR §402.14 (c)]. The ESO can assist in

determining what type of data will be needed for the formal consultation or conference.

A biological opinion looks beyond the effects of the proposed action. It also considers the

overall status of the species, and the environmental baseline and cumulative effects in the

action area. Additionally, if incidental take is anticipated as a result of the proposed action,

the incidental take statement that accompanies the biological opinion will lay out

nondiscretionary reasonable and prudent measures to minimize that take, consistent with the

requirements of sections 7(a)(2) and 7(b(4).

Draft jeopardy and adverse modification biological opinions and conference reports will be

forwarded by the ESO to the Regional Office Division of Endangered Species at least 2 weeks

prior to the end of the 90-day consultation period. These biological opinions and conference

reports must be signed by the Regional Director (if warranted). The Service Evaluation Form,

along with other pertinent information, is transmitted with the draft biological opinion or

conference report. The Project Leader is offered an opportunity to review the draft document

when the draft determination is jeopardy and/or adverse modification, or when incidental

take is anticipated. In these instances, it is beneficial to coordinate the development of

reasonable and prudent alternatives and/or reasonable and prudent measures. If disagreements

arise during this process, they can be elevated through the appropriate Assistant Regional

Directors for resolution.

Consistent with current delegations of authority, Regional Directors sign intra-Service section

7 biological opinions and conference reports finding jeopardy or adverse modification. 

Non-jeopardy/no adverse modification biological opinions and conference reports can be

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 275 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-23

signed by the pertinent ESO supervisor, if the Regional Director has delegated that authority

in his/her Region.

(7) WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS IF A JEOPARDY/ADVERSE MODIFICATION

OPINION IS RECEIVED?

If a final jeopardy or adverse modification biological opinion or conference opinion is

issued, the Project Leader must notify the ESO of the final decision on the proposed action. 

The Project Leader has three options: (a) to implement the reasonable and prudent

alternative(s) provided with the biological opinion; (b) to refrain from funding, approving, or

undertaking the project; or (c) to apply for an exemption from section 7 of the Act. However,

the Service (and the Department of the Interior) does not anticipate that an action proposed

under its programs will ever justify an exemption application.

OTHER INTRA-SERVICE CONSULTATION CONSIDERATIONS

The Service must be held to the same rigorous consultation standards that other Federal

agencies are required to meet under section 7. An ESO cannot prepare the draft biological

opinion, draft conference report, or concurrence document for its own action. Biological

opinions required for section 10(a)(1)(B) permits are handled by separate organizational

entities in the Regional Office's Division of Endangered Species.

This means, in part, that internal Service consultations under section 7 should be as impartial

as possible. However, it is also important that a section 7 consultation does not result in

otherwise avoidable delays when meeting target processing times. Such delays may result if

the section 7 consultation is assigned to an office too far removed from the location and

circumstances of the proposed action. In order to eliminate this problem, the biological

opinion should be drafted by staff member(s) independent of the section 7 consultation, but

who are familiar with the biological requirements of the species involved, and the geographic

area of the proposed action.

In order to minimize possible biases, the biological opinion should not be drafted by the

Service program taking the proposed action. Also, the Service program taking the proposed

action should not be the program providing technical assistance to the applicant, if any. It is

important that the staff member conducting the section 7 consultation be involved early in the

development of the proposed action, so that the requirements of section 7 are addressed in the

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 276 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-24

proposed action. The Service also recommends that the biologist(s) that conduct the section

7 consultation and the biologist that provide technical assistance to the applicant, if any,

should not have the same supervisor. This will help prevent any unintentional biases being

shared in the development of the proposed action and the biological opinion. The biological

opinion is then reviewed and finalized by the Regional Office processing the consultation. 

This ensures a good balance between independent review and timely permit processing. The

non-jeopardy biological opinion may also be finalized and signed by the Field Office

supervisor, if the Regional Director and the Assistant Director for Ecological Services have

delegated the authority to do so.

Regional Office Divisions of Endangered Species have lead coordination responsibilities for

national and inter-regional consultations. In addition, Regional Offices provide oversight of

the consultation program for quality control. For expedience in processing consultations, a

Service Project Leader may assume the lead responsibility for formal consultation in multiagency actions if the Service's role is significant.

All Project Leaders have a continuing responsibility to determine if discretionary ongoing

activities of the Service (no matter when the activities were initiated) comply with these

guidelines and procedures.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 277 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-25

Appendix 1

EXAMPLES OF STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES FOR INTRA-SERVICE

SECTION 7 CONCURRENCE, FORMAL CONSULTATION, AND CONFERENCE

A. Intra-Service Section 7 Concurrence

Situation: The Division of Federal Aid (FA) receives a project proposal from a State. The

project is eligible for funding under the Wildlife Restoration Grant Program. 

Step:

1. The Project Leader assesses which listed, proposed, candidate species and proposed

or designated critical habitats may occur within action areas. The Project Leader

has the option of requesting a list of listed, proposed, candidate species and

proposed or designated critical habitats from the ESO. This request includes

information on the specifics of the State request. Within 30 days of receiving the

request, ESO furnishes FA with a list of species that may be present in the action

area. Or, the Project Leader provides a list of species/critical habitats to the ESO

for ESO concurrence.

2. Upon receipt of any requested species information, FA conducts a "may affect"

analysis on listed, proposed, and candidate species.

3. If a "may affect" determination is made, then FA completes the Service Evaluation

Form and determines the action "is not likely to adversely affect" the listed,

proposed, candidate species, or designated/proposed critical habitats and requests in

writing that the ESO concur with this evaluation.

4. ESO responds within 30 days of receiving FA's request that there is concurrence,

and therefore no need for formal intra-Service section 7 consultation.

5. If FA determines "no effect," then a request for concurrence is unnecessary. If

species/critical habitats are present but the Project Leader determines there will be

no affect, he/she may proceed with the funding proposal.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 278 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-26

B. Intra-Service Section 7 Formal Consultation

Situation: The Division of Fisheries (DF) receives a request from a State for an action.

Step:

1. The Project Leader assesses which listed, proposed, candidate species and proposed

or designated critical habitats may occur within action areas. To assist in this

determination DF may request a list of listed, proposed, and candidate species from

the ESO. This request includes information on the specifics of the State request.

2. Within 30 days of receiving the request, the ESO furnishes DF with a list of species

that may be present in the action area.

3. Upon receiving any requested species information, DF conducts a "may affect"

analysis on listed, proposed, and candidate species that ESO said may be present.

4. DF concludes that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect listed species. 

5. DF requests, in writing, initiation of formal intra-Service section 7 consultation. A

completed Service Evaluation Form is submitted with the request.

6. ESO acknowledges the request for formal intra-Service section 7 consultation.

7. ESO prepares the draft biological opinion and submits to the ARD/ES for review.

8. The RD signs the biological opinion and forwards it to DF with a copy to the

ARD/DF.

C. Intra-Service Section 7 Conference

Situation: Refuges proposes an action in an area containing a proposed or candidate

species.

Step:

1. The Project Leader assesses which listed, proposed, candidate species and proposed

or designated critical habitat may occur within action areas. To assist in this

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 279 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-27

determination, Refuges may request a list of listed, proposed, and candidate species

from the ESO. This request includes information on the specifics of the request.

2. Within 30 days of receiving the request, the ESO furnishes Refuges with a list of

species that may be present in the action area.

3. Upon receiving any requested species information, Refuges conducts a "may affect"

analysis on listed, proposed, and candidate species that ESO said may be present.

4. Refuges works with the ESO to assess whether or not their proposed action may

jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed or candidate species. Refuges

evaluates their proposal for its potential effect on the proposed or candidate species.

5. As a result of the evaluation, Refuges concludes their proposal is likely to

jeopardize the proposed or candidate species. Refuges requests conference with

ESO on the Service Evaluation Form and asks for additional information.

6. The conference is held and ESO submits a draft conference report (the format

follows that of a biological opinion issued through formal consultation) to the

ARD/ES for review. The report contains advisory recommendations for minimizing

or avoiding adverse effects.

7. The Regional Director signs the conference report and forwards it to Refuges with a

copy to the ARD/Refuges. Refuges reviews the conference opinion and implements

the actions that will avoid adverse effects to the proposed or candidate species.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 280 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-28

Appendix 2

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

[Note: This form provides the outline of information needed for intra-Service

consultation. If additional space is needed, attach additional sheets, or set up this form

to accommodate your responses.]

Originating Person:

________________________

Telephone Number:

________________________

Date: ________________________

I. Region:

II. Service Activity (Program)

III. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area

C. Candidate species within the action area:

D. Include species/habitat occurrence on a map.

IV. Geographic area or station name and action:

V. Location (attach map):

A. Ecoregion Number and Name:

B. County and State:

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 281 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-29

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude):

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town:

E. Species/habitat occurrence:

VI. Description of proposed action (attach additional pages as needed):

VII. Determination of effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in items III.

A, B, and C (attach additional pages as needed):

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

VIII. Effect determination and response requested: [* = optional]

A. Listed species/designated critical habitat:

Determination Response requested

no effect/no adverse modification

(species:____________________________________)____*Concurrence

may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat

(species: ___________________________________)____Concurrence

may affect, and is likely to adversely 

affect species/adversely modify critical habitat

(species: ___________________________________)____Formal Consultation

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat:

Determination Response requested

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 282 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-30

no effect on proposed species/no adverse

modification of proposed critical habitat

(species: _____________________________________)____*Concurrence

is likely to jeopardize proposed species/

adversely modify proposed critical habitat

(species: _____________________________________)____Conference

C. Candidate species:

 Determination Response requested

no effect

(species: _____________________________________)____*Concurrence

is likely to jeopardize candidate species

(species: _____________________________________)____Conference

____________________________ ________

signaturedate

[Title/office of supervisor at originating

station]

IX. Reviewing ESO Evaluation:

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 283 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-31

_____________________________

_________

signaturedate

[Title/office of reviewing official]

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 284 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-32

INSTRUCTIONS

Originating Person: The person(s) or unit (field office, refuge, program) proposing an

action for which the Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form is being prepared.

Date: Date the information on the form was finalized.

I. Region: The Region in which the proposed action will occur.

II. Service activity: The Service program initiating the proposed action.

III. Pertinent species and habitat.

A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area: The action

area includes the immediate area where the proposed action will occur, as well as any

other areas where direct or indirect impacts of the action may be expected. For example,

effects of an action in the headwaters of a stream may affect endangered fish that occur

20 miles downstream. A compilation of listed species or critical habitats that possibly

occur in the action area may be generated by the Project Leader, or it may be requested

from the appropriate ESO.

Note: All experimental populations of listed species are treated as threatened species. 

However, for the purposes of intra-Service section 7 consultation, they are treated as

species proposed for listing if they occur off National Wildlife Refuge or National Park

System lands and they are classed as "non-essential" experimental populations.

List all threatened and endangered species and critical habitat that may be affected by the

proposed action. An effect exists even if only one individual or habitat segment may be

affected. Consider both beneficial and adverse effects, regardless of their magnitude.

It is necessary to list all threatened and endangered species and critical habitats in the

action area that will not be affected at any level of significance. This informs the

reviewer that such species have been considered.

B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: Lists

of proposed species and critical habitat that could occur in the action area may be

generated by the project leader or may be requested from the appropriate ESO.

List all species and habitats in the action area for which a proposed listing rule (but not a

final rule) or proposed critical habitat designation has been published in the Federal

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 285 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-33

Register. The list should include not only proposed species that may be affected, but also

those that will not be affected. Use the same consideration as in Item III (A) above.

C. Candidate species within the action area: Service actions shall include

consideration of candidate species as though proposed for listing. Lists of candidate

species that could occur in the action area may be generated by the project leader or may

be requested from the appropriate ESO.

List all candidate species that may be affected by the proposed action. Because listing

candidates may be added to, or dropped from, candidate species lists between the

typically biannual printings of the Notice of Review, it is necessary to check candidate

lists with the appropriate ESO.

Include in the list of candidate species in the action area those that will not be affected by

the proposed action.

IV. Geographic area or station name and action:

Briefly describe the proposed action and where it will occur. (For example: The

proposed action is to directly stock, or transfer to the State of X for stocking, channel

catfish and smallmouth bass. These stockings would occur in both Blue Water and

Minnow River drainages). A more detailed description of the proposed action will be

presented under Section VI.

V. Location (attach map):

In addition to the following four specific descriptions, it is vital to attach a map(s). The

reviewer may not be familiar with the project area and will need the maps to precisely

relate the proposed project to the affected species. Maps should depict, preferably in

large scale, the exact locations of project elements. The maps should include section,

township, and range, or latitude and longitude. Topographic maps are preferred, with

the action area depicted on them.

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Self-explanatory

B. County and State: Self-explanatory.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 286 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-34

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude):

Locate the project area as precisely as possible. If the action is stocking a small stock

tank, the descriptor should include at least quarter section and preferably quarter/quarter

section. For scattered project sites, such as in fish stocking, a location should be given

for each site.

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Self-explanatory.

E. Species/habitat occurrence: Depict on the location map the species and habitat

occurrences.

VI. Description of proposed action:

What is the purpose of this proposed action and how do you plan to accomplish it? 

Describe the project area as well as the project. These descriptions should be detailed

enough so that the reviewer can fully understand what the components of the action

include and how the project will affect the species. Do not assume that the reviewing

office will understand procedures that are taken for granted within your program. 

Details can be provided here, or by attaching copies of project plans, management plans,

stocking schedules, or other project documents. National Environmental Protection Act

documents are usually helpful attachments. Sketches or blueprints of the proposed

action should be attached. Proposed project dates should be provided. Attach a

biological assessment if the project is considered a "major construction activity." Include

any measures agreed to through informal consultation to reduce any adverse impacts.

VII. Determination of effects

A. Explanation of effects of the action:

Discuss either the effects of the action on each listed, proposed, or candidate species and

critical habitat in the action area, or why those species or critical habitats will not be

affected. For species or critical habitats affected by the proposed action, provide the

following information: [Note: candidate species will have no proposed critical habitat.]

(1) Status of species in action area; is it native (natural and/or stocked) or non-native in

the action area? Include population and/or distribution trends (provide survey

information).

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 287 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-35

(2) Species habitat in the action area and its significance to spawning, feeding,

migratory habits (or behavior), cover, roost, etc. Is the area currently occupied or

unoccupied historic range for the species?

(3) Impacts of the proposed action on species and/or critical habitat, including direct,

indirect, interdependent, interrelated, and cumulative impacts.

(4) Quantification of effects - acres of habitat, miles of habitat, number of individuals,

etc.

(5) Summary of effects - include the basis for your conclusion - best judgment,

literature, citations, studies, etc.

B. Describe, if known, project modifications that would promote the conservation

of the affected species. Project modification ideas may be found in recovery plans. 

Although section 7 of Act prohibits only those actions by Federal agencies which

are likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, the Service

has a commitment to recovering listed species and trying to prevent the need to list 

additional species.

VIII. Effect determination and response requested:

Enter the species in the appropriate determination. For each determination, place an X

on the response requested.

A. Listed species/critical habitat:

No effect/no adverse modification. This conclusion is reached if the proposed action

and its interrelated and interdependent actions will not directly or indirectly affect listed

species or destroy/adversely modify designated critical habitat. Formal section 7

consultation is not required when the no effect conclusion is reached. However, a

request for the optional written concurrence is encouraged to facilitate a complete

administrative record.

May Affect, but is not likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical

habitat. This conclusion is appropriate when effects to the species or critical habitat are

expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are

contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. 

Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact (and should never reach the scale

where take occurs), while discountable effects are those that are extremely unlikely to

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 288 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-36

occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully

measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to

occur. If the ESO concurs in writing with the Project Leader's determination of "is not

likely to adversely affect" listed species or critical habitat, the intra-Service section 7

consultation process is completed.

If formal section 7 consultation is required for other species affected by this proposed

action, then it may be easier and less confusing to fold the "is not likely to adversely

effect" concurrence into the formal section 7 consultation rather than doing a separate

concurrence.

May affect, and is likely to adversely affect species/adversely modify critical

habitat. This conclusion is reached if any adverse effect to listed species or critical

habitat may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed Service action or its

interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable, insignificant or

beneficial (see definition of "is not likely to adversely affect". In the event the overall

effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species or critical habitat, but may

also cause some adverse effect on individuals of the listed species or segments of the

critical habitat, then the determination should be "is likely to adversely affect." Such a

determination requires formal section 7 consultation.

Example: A refuge proposes prescribed burning for a prairie remnant to improve

the habitat for the endangered Karner blue butterfly. The burn will substantially

improve the habitat for the species and promote its recovery in subsequent years. 

However, individual Karner blue butterfly eggs and larvae will be killed during the

burn. Even though the net effect of the burn will be highly beneficial to the listed

species, the burn must be considered to have an adverse effect. A finding of "is

likely to adversely affect" is necessary.

B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat:

No effect on proposed species/no adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 

This conclusion is reached if the proposed action and its interrelated and interdependent

actions will not directly or indirectly affect proposed species or proposed critical habitat. 

A request for the optional written concurrence is encouraged.

Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed critical habitat. 

For proposed species and proposed critical habitats, the Service is required to evaluate

whether the proposed Service action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

the proposed species or adversely modify an area proposed for designation as critical

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 289 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Intra-Service Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-37

habitat. If this conclusion is reached, a section 7 conference is required. If this

conclusion is reached, intra-Service conference is required. 

C. Candidate species:

No effect on candidate species. This conclusion is reached if the proposed action and

its interrelated and interdependent actions will not directly or indirectly affect candidate

species. A request for the optional written concurrence is encouraged.

Is likely to jeopardize candidate species. For candidate species, the Service is required

to evaluate whether the proposed Service action is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the candidate species. If this conclusion is reached, intra-Service section 7

conference is required.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 290 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX F - FWS/NMFS REGIONAL & FIELD OFFICES

HANDLING SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 291 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-1

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Region 1: CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA, American Samoa, Territories of the Pacific Islands

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181

Telephone: (503) 231-6118

Fax: (503) 231-2122

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Sacramento Field Office Roseburg Field Office

 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130 2900 N.W. Stewart Parkway

Sacramento, California 95821-6340 Roseburg, Oregon 97470

 Telephone: (916) 979-2710 Telephone: (503) 957-3474

 Fax : (916) 979-2723 Fax: (503) 957-3475

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Carlsbad Field Office Portland Field Office

 2730 Loker Avenue West 2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100

Carlsbad, California 92008 Portland, Oregon 97266

Telephone: (760) 431-9440 Telephone: (503) 231-6179

Fax: (760) 431-9624 Fax: (503) 231-6195

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Ventura Field Office Klamath Basin Ecosystem

 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Restoration Office

Ventura, California 93003

 Telephone: (805) 644-1766/1767

 Fax: (805) 644-3958 Telephone: (541) 885-8481

 6610 Washburn Way

Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603

 Fax: (541) 885-7837

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 292 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-2

 Field Supervisor WWO Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Barstow Field SubOffice N. Pacific Coast Ecoregion -

 222 East Main St., Suite 202 Western Washington Office

Barstow, California 92311

 Telephone: (619) 255-8801

 Fax: (619) 255- 8845 Telephone: (360) 753-9440

 510 Desmond Drive, SE, Suite 101

Lacey, Washington 98503-1273

 Fax: (360) 753-9008

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 Coastal California Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Wildlife Office Upper Columbia River Basin Field

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office

 1125 16th Street, Room 209 11103 E. Montgomery Drive, Suite 2

Arcata, California 95521-5582 Spokane, Washington 99206

 Telephone: (707) 822-7201 Telephone: (509) 891-6839

 Fax: (707) 822-8411 Fax: (509) 891-6748

 Field Supervisor State Supervisor

 Klamath River Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Wildlife Office Snake River Basin Field Office

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368

 1215 South Main, Suite 212

 (P.O. Box 1006)

Yreka, California 96097-1006 Telephone: (208) 378-5243

 Telephone: (916) 842-5763

 Fax: (916) 842-4517

Boise, Idaho 83709

Fax: (208) 378-5262

 Field Supervisor State Supervisor

 Northern Central Valley Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Wildlife Office Nevada State Office

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234

 10950 Tyler Road

 (P.O. Box 667)

Red Bluff, California 96080 Telephone: (702) 861-6300

 Telephone: (916) 527-3043

 Fax: (916) 529-0292

Reno, Nevada 89502

 Fax: (702) 861-6301

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 293 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-3

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor

 Big Island Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Box 44, Building 343 Hawaii Field Office

Hawaii Volcanoes, Hawaii 96718

 Telephone: (808) 967-7396 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-0001

 Fax: (808) 967-8568

 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3108

 (P.O. Box 50088)

 Telephone: (808) 541-2749

 Fax: (808) 541-2756

 Supervisor Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Rota Office Guam Office

 P.O. Box 12511 P.O. Box 8134, MOU-3

 Rota, Northern Marinas 96951 Dededo, Guam 96912

 Telephone: (670) 532-4018 Telephone: (671) 637-6452

 Fax: (670) 532-4019 Fax: (671) 355-5098

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 294 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-4

Region 2: AZ, NM, OK, TX

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

500 Gold Avenue S.W.

(P.O. Box 1306)

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1306

Telephone: (505) 248- 6920

Fax: (505) 248- 6922

 

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Arizona State Office Arlington Field Office

 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103 Stadium Centre Building

Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951

Telephone: (602) 640-2720

 Fax: (602) 640-2730 Telephone: (817) 885-7830

 711 Stadium Drive East, Suite 252

Arlington, Texas 76011

Fax: (817) 885-7835

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 New Mexico Field Office Corpus Christi Field Office

 2105 Osuna, N.E. Corpus Christi State University

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87120

 Telephone: (505) 761-4525 Corpus Christi, Texas 78412

 Fax: (505) 761-4542

 Room 118, Old Science Hall

 6300 Ocean Drive, Campus Box 338

 Telephone: (512) 994-9005

 Fax: (512) 994-8262

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 295 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-5

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Oklahoma Field Office Clear Lake Field Office

 222 South Houston, Suite A 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127-8909 Houston, Texas 77058

 Telephone: (918) 581-7458 Telephone: (713) 286-8282

 Fax: (918) 581-7467 Fax: (713) 488-5882

 Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Austin Field Office

 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 

Austin, Texas 78758

 Telephone: (512) 490-0057

 Fax: (512) 490-0978

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 296 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-6

Region 3: IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

B.H. Whipple Federal Building

1 Federal Drive

Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056

Telephone: (612) 713-5350

Fax: (612) 713-5292

 

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Twin Cities Field Office Chicago Field Office

 4101 E. 80th Street 1000 Hart Road, Suite 180

Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1665 Barrington, Illinois 60010

 Telephone: (612) 725-3548 Telephone: (847) 381-2253

 Fax: (612) 725-3609 Fax: (847) 381-2285

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Green Bay Field Office Rock Island Field Office

 1015 Challenger Court 4469 48th Avenue Court

Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311-8331 Rock Island, Illinois 61201

 Telephone: (414) 465-7440 Telephone: (309) 793-5800

 Fax: (414) 465-7410 Fax: (309) 793-5804

 Field Supervisor Asst. Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 East Lansing Field Office Marion Sub-Office

 2651 Coolidge Road Route 3, Box 328

East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Marion, Illinois 62959-4565

 Telephone: (517) 351-2555 Telephone: (618) 997-5491

 Fax: (517) 351-1443 Fax: (618) 997-8961

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 297 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-7

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Columbia Field Office Reynoldsburg Field Office

 608 E. Cherry Street, Room 200 6950 Americana Parkway, Suite H 

 Columbia, Missouri 65201-7712 Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-4132

 Telephone: (573) 876-1911 Telephone: (614) 469-6923

 Fax: (573) 876-1914 Fax: (614) 469-6919

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Bloomington Field Office Northern Indiana Sub-Office

 620 South Walker Street 120 South Lake Street, Suite 230

 Bloomington, Indiana 47403-2121 Warsaw, Indiana 46580

 Telephone: (812) 334-4261 Telephone: (219) 269-7640

 Fax: (812) 334-4273 Fax: (219) 269-7432

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 298 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-8

Region 4: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, U.S. VI

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1875 Century Blvd.

Atlanta, Georgia 30345

Telephone: (404) 679-4000

Fax: (404) 679-4006

 

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Lafayette Field Office Caribbean Field Office

 Brandywine Bldg. II, Suite 102 Carr 301, Km 5.1, BO Corozo

 825 Kaliste Saloom Road (P.O. Box 491)

Lafayette, Louisiana 70508 Boqueron, Puerto Rico 00622

Telephone: (318) 262-6630 Telephone: (787) 851-7297

Fax: (318) 262-6663 Fax: (787) 851-7440

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Jackson Field Office Puerto Rican Parrot Field Office

 6578 Dogwood View Parkway Edificio Suarez

 Suite A Calle Garcia de la Noceda

Jackson, Mississippi 39213

 Telephone: (601) 965-4900

 Fax: (601) 965-4340 Telephone: (787) 887-9769

 Local No. 1 (P.O. Box 1600)

Rio Grande, Puerto Rico 00745

 Fax: (787) 887-7512

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 299 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-9

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Vicksburg Field Office Charleston Field Office

 2524 S. Frontage Road, Suite B 217 Ft. Johnson Road

Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-5269

 Telephone: (601) 629-6607 29422-2559

 Fax: (601) 636-0128

 (P.O. Box 12559)

Charleston, South Carolina

 Telephone: (803) 727-4707

 Fax: (803) 727-4218

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Daphne Field Office Clemson Field Office

 Daphne East Office Plaza Dept. of Forest Resources

 2001 Highway 98, Suite A 261 Lehotsky Hall, Box 341003

 (P.O. Drawer 1190)

Daphne, Alabama 36526 29634-1003

Telephone: (334) 441-5181 Telephone: (803) 656-2432

Fax: (334) 441-6222 Fax: (803) 656-1350

Clemson, South Carolina

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Jacksonville Field Office Raleigh Field Office

 6620 Southpoint Drive, South 551-F Pylon Drive

 Suite 310 (P.O. Box 33726)

Jacksonville, Florida 32216-0912 Raleigh, North Carolina

 Telephone: (904) 232-2580

 Fax: (904) 232-2404 Telephone: (919) 856-4520

 27636 (-3726)

 Fax: (919) 856-4556

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Panama City Field Office Asheville Field Office

 1612 June Avenue 160 Zillicoa Street

Panama City, Florida 32405-3721 Asheville, North Carolina

 Telephone: (904) 769-0552 Telephone: (704) 258-3939

 Fax: (904) 763-2177 Fax: (704) 258-5330

 28801

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 300 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-10

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Vero Beach Field Office Cookeville Field Office

 1360 U.S. Highway 1, # 5 446 Neal Street

 (P.O. Box 2676)

Vero Beach, Florida 32961-2676

 Telephone: (561) 562-3909 Fax: (615) 528-7075

 Fax: (561) 562-4288

Cookeville, Tennessee 38501

 Telephone: (615) 528-6481

 Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Brunswick Field Office

 4270 Norwich Street

Brunswick, Georgia 31520-2523

 Telephone: (912) 265-9336

 Fax: (912) 265-1061

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 301 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-11

Region 5: CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035-9589

Telephone: (413) 253-8200

Fax: (413) 253-8308 

 

 Field Office Coordinator Project Leader

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Maine Field Office Pennsylvania Field Office

 1033 South Main Street 315 South Allen St., Suite 322

Old Town, Maine 04468 State College, Pennsylvania 16801

 Telephone: (207) 827-5938 Telephone: (814) 234-4090

 Fax: (207) 827-6099 Fax: (814) 234-0748

 Project Leader Project Leader

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 New England Field Office Chesapeake Bay Field Office

 Ralph Pill Marketplace, 4th Floor 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive

 22 Bridge Street, Unit # 1

Concord, New Hampshire 03301-4986

 Telephone: (603) 225-1411 Fax: (410) 269-0832

 Fax: (603) 225-1467

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

 Telephone: (410) 573-4500

 Project Leader Project Leader

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 New York Field Office Virginia Field Office

 3817 Luker Road (P.O. Box 99)

Cortland, New York 13045

 Telephone: (607) 753-9334

 Fax: (607) 753-9699 Telephone: (804) 693-6694

 6669 Short Lane

Gloucester, Virginia 23061

 Fax: (804) 693-9032

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 302 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-12

 Senior Biologist Project Leader

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Long Island Field Office Southwestern Virginia Field Office

 500 Saint Marks Lane 322 Cummings Street, Suite B

 (P.0. Box 608) (P.O. Box 2345)

Islip, New York 11751 (-0608) Abingdon, Virginia 24212

 Telephone: (516) 581-2941 Telephone: (703) 623-1233

 Fax: (516) 581-2972 Fax: (703) 623-1185

 Project Leader Project Leader

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 New Jersey Field Office West Virginia Field Office

 927 North Main St. Bldg. D-1 Route 250, South

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232

 Telephone: (609) 646-0620 Elkins, West Virginia 26241

 Fax: (609) 646-0352

 Elkins Shopping Plaza

 (P.O. Box 1278)

 Telephone: (304) 636-6586

 Fax: (304) 636-7824

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 303 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-13

Region 6: CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Street address)

(Lake Plaza North Building) P.O. Box 25486

(134 Union Blvd., 4th Floor) Denver Federal Center

(Lakewood, Colorado 80228) Denver, Colorado 80225

Telephone: (303) 236-7920

Fax: (303) 236-6958

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Montana Field Office Utah Field Office

 100 North Park, Suite 320 Lincoln Plaza, Suite 404

Helena, Montana 59601

 Telephone: (406) 449-5225

 Fax: (406) 449-5339 Telephone: (801) 524-5001

 145 East 1300 South

 Salt Lake City, Utah 84115

 Fax: (801) 524-5021

 Sub-Office Coordinator Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Billings Sub-Office Colorado Field Office

 2900 4th Avenue N., Room 301 730 Simms Street, Suite 290

Billings, Montana 59101 Golden, Colorado 80401-4798

 Telephone: (406) 247-7366 Telephone: (303) 231-5280

 Fax: (406) 247-7364 Fax: (303) 231-5285

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 304 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-14

 Sub-Office Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado River Recovery Office

 Kalispell Sub-Office 134 Union Boulevard, Room 440

 780 Creston Hatchery Road (P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal

Kalispell, Montana 59901

 Telephone: (406) 758-6868

 Fax: (406) 758-6877 Telephone: (303) 236-2985

 Center)

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

 Fax: (303) 236-0027

 Grizzly Bear Recovery Coord. Asst. Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Forestry Sciences Lab Western Colorado Field Office

 University of Montana 764 Horizon Drive South, Annex A

Missoula, Montana 59812 Grand Junction, Colorado

 Telephone: (406) 329-3223

 Fax: (406) 329-3212 Telephone: (970) 243-2778

 81506-3946

 Fax: (970) 245-6933

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 North Dakota Field Office Nebraska Field Office

 1500 Capital Avenue 203 West Second Street

Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-2096

 Telephone: (701) 250-4481

 Fax: (701) 250-4400 Telephone: (308) 382-6468

 Federal Building, 2nd Floor

 Grand Island, Nebraska 68801-5907

 Fax: (308) 384-8835

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 South Dakota Field Office Kansas Field Office

 420 South Garfield Avenue 315 Houston Street, Suite E

 Suite 400

Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5408

Telephone: (605) 224-8693 Fax: (913) 539-8567

Fax: (605) 224-9974

Manhattan, Kansas 66502-6172

 Telephone: (913) 539-3474

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 305 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-15

 Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Wyoming Field Office

 4000 Morrie Avenue

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

 Telephone: (307) 772-2374

 Fax: (307) 772-2358

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Black Footed Ferret Office

 410 Grand Avenue, Suite 315

Laramie, Wyoming 80270

 Telephone: (307) 721-8805

 Fax: (307) 742-4226

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 306 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-16

Region 7: AK

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 East Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

Telephone: (907) 786-3542

Fax: (907) 786-3350

 Field Supervisor Field Supervisor

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Anchorage Field Office Juneau Field Office

 605 West 4th Avenue, Room G-62 300 Vintage Boulevard, Suite 201

Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Juneau, Alaska 99801-7100

 Telephone: (907) 271-2888 Telephone: (907) 586-7240

 Fax: (907) 271-2786 Fax: (907) 586-7154

 Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ketchikan Sub-Office

 Fairbanks Field Office 103 Main Street

 101 12th Avenue, Box 19, Room 232 (P.O. Box 3193)

 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901

 Telephone: (907) 456-0203 Telephone: (907) 225-9691

 Fax: (907) 456-0208 Fax: (907) 225-9673

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 307 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-17

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Headquarters Office

Headquarters Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

Endangered Species Division

Office of Protected Resources

1315 East-West Highway, PR 3

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Telephone: (301) 713-1401

Fax: (301) 713-0376

Northeast Region: CT, DE, DC, IL, IN, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI,

VA, VT, WV, WI

Northeast Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

One Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, Massachusetts 09130-2298

Telephone: (978) 281-9346

Fax: (978) 281-9394

Southeast Region: AL, AR, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, NE, NM, NC, OK, PR, SC,

TN, TX, U.S. VI

Southeast Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

9721 Executive Center Drive

St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Telephone: (727) 570-5312

Fax: (727) 570-5517

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 308 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-18

Southwest Region: AZ, CA, GU, HI, NV, American Samoa, Territories of the Pacific Islands

Southwest Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200

Long Beach, California 90802-4213

Telephone: (562) 980-4020

Fax: (562) 980-4027

Santa Rosa Field Office Eureka Field Office

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 1330 Bayshore Way

Santa Rosa, California 95404 Eureka, California 95501

Telephone: (707) 575-7513 Telephone: (707) 441-3684

Fax: (707) 575-3435 Fax: (707) 441-3685

Arcata Field Office Western Pacific Field Office

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

1125 16th Street, Room 209 2570 Dole Street

Arcata, California 95521 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

Telephone: (707) 822-7201 Telephone: (808) 973-2987

Fax: (707) 822-8411 Fax: (808) 973-2941

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 309 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-19

Northwest Region: CO, ID, MT, ND, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY

Northwest Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

7600 Sand Point Way, N.E.

BINC 15700 Building 1

Seattle, Washington 98115-0070

Telephone: (206) 526-6150

Fax: (206) 526-6426

Protected Species Program Olympia Field Office

Northwest Region National Marine Fisheries Service

National Marine Fisheries Service 510 Desmond Drive, S.E.

525 N.E. Oregon Street Suite 103

Portland, Oregon 97232-2737 Lacey, Washington 98503

Telephone: (503) 230-5400 Telephone: (360) 753-5827

Fax: (503) 230-5435 Fax: (360) 753-9517

Dalles Field Office Boise Field Office

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

2325 River Road, # 4 1387 South Vinnell Way

The Dalles, Oregon 97058

Telephone: (541) 296-8989

Fax: (541) 296-8717 Telephone: (208) 378-5734

Suite 377

Boise, Idaho 83709

Fax: (208) 378-5699

Roseburg Field Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

2900 Stewart Parkway, N.W.

Roseburg, Oregon 97470

Telephone: (541) 957-3383

Fax: (541) 957-3386

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 310 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F-20

Alaska Region: AK

Alaska Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

709 W. 9th Street, Federal Bldg. 461

Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668

Telephone: (907) 586-7235

Fax: (907) 586-7012

Anchorage Field Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

Federal Building

222 West 7th Avenue, # 43

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7577

Telephone: (907) 271-5006

Fax: (907) 271-3030

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 311 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G-1

APPENDIX G - EXEMPTION PROCESS

The Section 7 Exemption Process

To respond to situations where Federal agency actions would be prevented from going

forward due to the "jeopardy" prohibition of section 7(a)(2) without further opportunity for

review, Congress added an exemption procedure through the 1978 Amendments to the Act. 

That procedure was substantially amended through the Endangered Species Act Amendments

of 1979 and 1982; implementing regulations have been codified at 50 CFR §§450-453.

The following summarizes the exemption process. 

1. Federal actions subject to the exemption process

Any Federal action which, after consultation under section 7 of the Act, has resulted in a

biological opinion which concludes that the action is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat of a listed

species, may pursue an exemption.

2. Initiating the exemption process

Following completion of formal consultation, the Federal agency, the Governor of the

State in which the action is proposed, or the permit or license applicant may initiate the

exemption process. A "permit or license applicant" is defined by the Act as the person

whose application to a Federal agency for a permit or license has been denied primarily

because of the application of section 7(a) to that agency action.

Within the Department of the Interior, the exemption process is administered by the

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, rather than the FWS.

3. Prerequisites for consideration

In order to be accepted for consideration, an application must satisfy the following

conditions. The Federal agency and the applicant must have:

- carried out the consultation responsibilities in good faith and made a reasonable

and responsible effort to develop and fairly consider modifications or reasonable

and prudent alternatives to the proposed action;

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 312 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G-2

- conducted any required biological assessment; and

- refrained from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources

during consultation.

4. Exemption process

a. An application for exemption is filed within 90 days of completion of consultation

(for Federal agencies) or within 90 days of completion of the agency's final formal

action on the permit or license (for non-Federal applicants).

b. The Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce) conducts a threshold review of the

application to determine whether the prerequisites for consideration have been met

(20 days or longer if agreed to by the exemption applicant). Any negative finding

made by the Secretary on the threshold review would constitute final agency action

and terminate the exemption process.

c. If the applicant passes the threshold review, the appropriate Secretary then holds a

Administrative Procedure Act formal hearing on the application (presided over by

an Administrative Law Judge). The purpose of the hearing is to allow the

submission of appropriate evidence and the compilation of the agency record. The

Secretary submits a report to the Committee within 140 days (or longer if agreed to

by the exemption applicant) of the initial determination. The Secretary's report to

the Committee must consider the following:

- the availability of reasonable and prudent alternatives, the nature and extent of

benefits of the agency action, and alternative courses of action consistent with

conservation of the species or critical habitat;

- a summary of evidence concerning whether the agency action is in the public

interest and is of national or regional significance;

- appropriate reasonable mitigation and enhancement issues to be considered by

the Committee; and

- whether the agency and applicant refrained from making any irreversible or

irretrievable commitment of resources during consultation.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 313 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G-3

d. The Committee consists of 7 members: the Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary

of the Army; the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors; the Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency; the Secretary of the Interior (who serves as

the Chairman); the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration; and one individual from each affected State (appointed by the

President). The Committee makes its final determination within 30 days of receipt

of the report. An affirmative vote of 5 members is required to grant an exemption. 

State representatives share one vote, when more than one State is represented on

the Committee.

5. Potential outcomes

There is little administrative history reflecting the likely outcome of the Committee's

review. To date only three cases have completed the entire review process:

- Tellico Dam posed jeopardy to the snail darter. The Committee voted 7 to 0 not

to grant an exemption. [An Appropriations Act rider subsequently allowed the

dam to be completed.]

- Grayrocks Dam on the Platte River posed jeopardy to the whooping crane. An

exemption was granted, but the Committee required that the agency adopt the

reasonable and prudent alternative that had been determined in the biological

opinion.

- BLM timber sales in Oregon posed jeopardy to the northern spotted owl. An

exemption was granted for 13 of 44 sales covered by the application. The 13

exempted sales were subject to a mitigation measure requiring BLM to implement

the recovery plan for the owl as expeditiously as possible. The remaining sales

remain subject to the reasonable and prudent alternatives provided in the

biological opinion. This Committee action was challenged in court on the basis

of infringement of the Administrative Procedure Act during the deliberations of

the Committee. The application was subsequently withdrawn.

Three other applications were withdrawn by the applicant prior to Committee review.

- Pittston (oil refinery in Maine) was enjoined from further action on the proposal

by related Court action and dropped their application; 

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 314 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G-4

- an application filed relative to dredging in the Suwannee River was withdrawn

when it was determined that the contractor filing the request did not represent the

applicant involved; and 

- a barge fleeting permit on the Ohio River was withdrawn by the applicant prior to

the administrative hearing.

One application was denied.

- 25 farmers applied for an exemption for the Montgomery County Conservation

District. 

The Committee must grant an exemption if the Secretary of Defense finds it is necessary

for reasons of national security, and the President

may grant an exemption to restore public facilities in declared natural disaster areas under

certain circumstances.

An exemption cannot be granted if the Secretary of State finds that such an action would

be a violation of an international treaty or other obligation of the United States.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 315 of 316
* * * * * * Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998 * * * * * *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX H - INTERAGENCY MOA ON STREAMLINED CONSULTATIONS

NOTE: The MOA had not been signed when this handbook went to print. A copy of the

signed MOA will be provided for insertion as Appendix H.

USCA Case #14-5205 Document #1599611 Filed: 09/29/2015 Page 316 of 316