Biological Opinion and Conservation Review Consultation History Discussions concerning consultation on the Solar Energy Program commenced in August, 2009. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and BLM met repeatedly in the following months to consider a strategy to complete programmatic consultation. On February 2, 2012, BLM requested initiation of consultation and later that month BLM and FWS signed a consultation agreement expressing expected outcomes and a schedule for completing consultation. Since then staff of the two agencies have convened teleconferences approximately once a week to discuss details of the consultation and progress toward completion. Our review and biological opinion rely upon those discussions, the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement prepared in connection with the program, and a Biological Assessment and Conservation Assessment provided by BLM. This document was prepared in the FWS Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Plans, Recovery, and State Grants based on materials provided by FWS Regions 2, 6, and 8. Programmatic Biological Opinion Description of the Proposed Action The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes establishing a Solar Energy Program by amending land use plans in 6 southwestern States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah). The amendments would exclude certain areas from availability for utility- scale solar energy development, identify Solar Energy Zones (SEZs) within which utility-scale solar energy development would be a priority use, and establish design features that would be applicable to all future utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. Seventeen SEZs are currently proposed comprising 285,000 acres (1,153 km2). Scope As part of this consultation, the agencies have agreed to conduct a conservation review of the program pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act and a formal consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act regarding the effects of designating the SEZs. It is understood that subsequent solar development projects within SEZs or elsewhere will be examined for effects to listed species and critical habitat and where appropriate will be subject to the consultation requirements of section 7. This programmatic biological opinion was prepared in accordance with the July 16, 2003, guidance for programmatic-level consultations (FWS 2003) as described below. Programmatic consultations can provide the benefit of streamlining the consultation process while leading to a more landscape-based approach to consultations that can minimize the potential “piecemeal” effects that can occur when evaluating individual projects out of the context of a complete agency program. Due to the number of potential solar energy projects and lack of project-level information, a tiered-programmatic approach has been taken by the FWS in an 1 attempt to analyze the effects to listed species at the level of the SEZ and streamline future consultations. This programmatic biological opinion does not exempt incidental take of any existing or future action. The tiered approach is a two-stage consultation process. The first stage evaluates the landscape- level effects. The second stage results in the completion of project-specific documentation that addresses the specific effects of each individual project. Under the tiered approach, two complete biological opinions are required for each proposed action, with the second-stage documents “tiering” to the first-stage document by incorporating portions of it by reference. Thus each action has its own individual consultation document that is supported by the programmatic document. As individual projects are proposed under the tiered programmatic consultation approach, project- specific information will be provided that: (1) describes each proposed action and the specific areas to be affected; (2) identifies the species and critical habitat that may be affected; (3) describes the manner in which the proposed action may affect listed species; (4) describes the anticipated effects; (5) specifies whether the anticipated effects from the proposed project are consistent with those analyzed in the programmatic biological opinion; (6) describes proposed measures to minimize potential effects of the action; and (7) describes any additional effects, if any, not considered in the programmatic consultation. The FWS reviews this information and then completes a tiered biological opinion with a project-specific incidental take statement. This document, while meeting the basic requirements of biological opinions as specified at 50 CFR 402.14(h), generally requires less effort to complete because it references back, or tiers, to the program-level biological opinion. Description of the Action Area The action area includes all areas within the boundaries of the SEZs; access roads and power transmission lines; and desert tortoise translocation areas including recipient and control sites (if determined to be necessary during project-specific analyses). We chose to include a 0.5-mile area adjacent to and surrounding each SEZ to fully capture direct and indirect effects to tortoises with home ranges that overlap the SEZs. The action area for the access roads and transmission lines is not fully known but will be determined during planning for future projects and evaluated in project-level consultation. This inclusion of areas adjacent to the SEZs is consistent with similar actions and consultations. No projects or other disturbance beyond power transmission and access are anticipated to occur outside the SEZ boundaries. Because we do not know the location of all future project-related areas outside the SEZs, our analysis of the environmental baseline and effects in this programmatic consultation is limited to general information provided by BLM. A thorough, project-level analysis will be performed when a given project is proposed and a request for consultation has been submitted to the Service, at which time incidental take may be exempted, as appropriate. 2 The programmatic action area also encompasses the hydrographic basins that support habitat for the entire range of the Moapa dace, Devils Hole pupfish, Amargosa niterwort, Ash Meadows blazing-star, Ash Meadows gumplant, Ash Meadows ivesia, Ash Meadows milkvetch, Ash Meadows sunray, spring-loving centaury, Ash Meadows naucorid, Ash Meadows amargosa pupfish, Ash Meadows speckled dace, and Warm Springs pupfish. The action area also includes the hydrographic basins that support habitat within a portion of the range for the Hiko White River springfish, White River springfish, and Pahranagat roundtail chub. All these would potentially be affected by project-related groundwater withdrawals. Assumptions The following assumptions regarding future consultation (second stage) are incorporated into this programmatic biological opinion: 1. Analysis for site-specific actions proposed in SEZs that are likely to result in adverse effects to listed species will be submitted to FWS pursuant to section 7 or section 10 of the Act, as appropriate. 2. Specific actions that the Federal permitting agency or FWS determines may affect listed species will undergo consultation according to section 7(a)(2). These actions will be assessed on their own merits and be evaluated relative to the jeopardy and adverse modification criteria of the Act, as appropriate. 3. Specific actions that do not have a Federal nexus but may result in adverse effects to listed species may require a section 10 incidental take permit. These actions will be assessed on their own merits and be evaluated relative to the jeopardy and adverse modification criteria and section 10 issuance criteria of the Act, as appropriate. 4. FWS will provide guidance on future site-specific actions in order to ensure that the project description is consistent with our biological opinion, so that our determination remains valid. Results of the Biological Assessment The Biological Assessment identified 17 species as likely to be adversely affected by solar development within the SEZs: desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), Amargosa niterwort (Nitrophila mohavensis), Ash Meadows blazing-star (Mentzelia leucophylla), Ash Meadows gumplant (Grindelia fraxino-pratensis), Ash Meadows ivesia (Ivesia eremica), Ash Meadows milkvetch (Astragalus phoenix), Ash Meadows sunray (Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata), spring-loving centaury (Centaurium namophilum), Ash Meadows naucorid (Ambrysus amargosus), Ash Meadows amargosa pupfish (Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes), Ash Meadows speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis), Devils Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis), Moapa dace (Moapa coriacea), Warm Springs pupfish (Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis), White River springfish (Crenichthys baileyi baileyi), Hiko White River springfish (Crenichthys baileyi 3 grandis), and Pahranagat roundtail chub (Gila robusta jordani). The Biological Assessment also found that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following species: northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis), Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens), Pahrump poolfish (Empetrichthys latos), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailllii extimus), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), and Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). Effects to all these species are addressed in this Biological Opinion. Concurrences and other Determinations We concur with BLM determinations that the proposed action may affect, but