Attachment 5(r) - Fort Irwin Programmatic BO.pdf

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

In Reply Refer To:

FWS-SB-14B0363-14F0495

Colonel Jonathan P. Braga Department of the Army

Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008

Headquarters, United States Army Garrison Building 237, B Avenue, P.O. Box 105021 Fort Irwin, California 92310-5000

AUG 0 8 2014

Subject: Biological Opinion for Operations and Activities at Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California

Dear Colonel Braga:

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion regarding the effects on the federally threatened desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii) and its critical habitat, in accordance with section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), for all identified existing and future actions that are likely to occur on Fort Irwin. This document also describes the criteria by which the U.S. Army will determine whether its actions are likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise or its critical habitat and our concurrence with actions that are undertaken within the framework of these criteria.

This biological opinion is based on information in our files and discussions with your staff during the course of consultation. A complete record of this consultation can be made available at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

Consultation History

In response to a request for formal consultation from the Army (2013a), dated November 14,2013, for the construction and operation of a solar facility, staff from the Army and Service discussed the basic concepts of this base-wide consultation. The Army and Service agreed to consult formally on future base-wide operations and activities rather than the single solar project. Based on these discussions and our general knowledge of the activities at Fort Irwin from past consultations, we provided a draft biological opinion to the Army. This final biological opinion incorporates the Army's comments on the draft biological opinion.

The Service and Army are aware of only one other federally listed species within the boundaries ofFort Irwin, the endangered Lane Mountain milk-vetch (Astragalusjaegerianus). Because of the extremely limited distribution of this species, the Army and Service agreed that we would not include this species in this programmatic consultation. Instead, the Army will manage the

Colonel Jonathan P. Braga (FWS-SB-14B0363-14F0495)

Lane Mountain milk-vetch according to the provisions of its integrated natural resources management plan and consult with the Service on a case-by-case basis if any future activity may affect this species. The Army developed the following conservation measures for the Lane Mountain milk-vetch during consultation on the use of additional training lands at Fort Irwin.

The Army will ensure the long-term survival of the Lane Mountain milk-vetch by:

1. Maintaining the National Training Center - Gemini Conservation Area adjacent to the southern boundary of the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex. This 2,471-acre off-limits area was fenced in 2003, restricting most vehicle traffic. Most of this population of the Lane Mountain milk-vetch is contained within this conservation area.

2. Maintaining the 4,300-acre East Paradise Conservation Area. This conservation area contains 80 percent of the East Paradise population of the Lane Mountain milk-vetch.

3. Maintaining the 3,700-acre Brinkman Wash Restricted Access Area that contains

1,872 acres of Lane Mountain milk-vetch habitat.

4. Erecting and maintaining signs along the perimeter of the Restricted Access Area at approximately 100-meter intervals and by erecting restricted access signs along all routes that access the Brinkman Wash Restricted Access Area.

5. Incorporating information regarding the off-limits areas into environmental awareness briefings.

6. Delineating all Lane Mountain milk-vetch conservation areas on all training maps.

7. Prohibiting and eliminating all vehicular travel in Lane Mountain milk-vetch conservation areas with the following exceptions: (1) access for yearly monitoring and research approved by the Fort Irwin Natural Resources Program Manager; (2) emergency vehicles, particularly those needed for wildfire control; and (3) exceptional natural resource activities, such as roundups of feral burros (Equus africanus asinus) or cultural surveys, approved by the Fort Irwin Natural Resources Program Manager.

8. Utilizing observer/controller teams to prevent unnecessary habitat destruction by rotational units unfamiliar with the terrain and travel routes.

9. Identifying and conserving potential habitat for the Lane Mountain milk-vetch within the region. Fort Irwin will:

• Identify and survey for small pockets of potential habitat, defined by soil, bedrock geology, and elevation, found within the boundaries of Fort Irwin.

• If potential habitat for the Lane Mountain milk-vetch is found, attempt to reduce training in the area by reclassifying the area as “No Dig.” If reclassification is possible and does not limit the Army’s mission, the Army will erect signs and siebert stakes around the periphery of the area and notify Integrated Training Area Management GIS so that the reclassification will appear on the next update of the range map.

10. Conserving host plants and using the viability of host plants as an indicator of ecosystem health in Lane Mountain milk-vetch habitat.

11. Erecting passive dust monitoring stations so that dust deposition can be monitored for impacts to the Lane Mountain milk-vetch from fugitive dust.

12. Appling soil binders to main supply routes and battalion staging areas to reduce dust production.

13. Monitoring and controlling invasive plants and weeds and monitoring and mapping the spread of exotic species in Lane Mountain milk-vetch habitat.

The Service (2014) provided a draft biological opinion to the Army for its review and comment on June 7, 2014. The Army (2014) provided comments on the draft biological opinion on June 24, 2014. We have incorporated the Army’s comments into this final biological opinion.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSULTATION

The Army will evaluate future actions that may affect the desert tortoise or its critical habitat at Fort Irwin. The Natural and Cultural Resources Program Manager of the Directorate of Public Works at Fort Irwin will review all discretionary actions that the Army proposes on Fort Irwin.

Based on the nature of the activity, its potential to adversely affect desert tortoises or their critical habitat, and any measures that can be implemented to avoid or minimize the effect, the Army will determine whether the action will not affect, is not likely to adversely affect, or is likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise or its critical habitat.

The Army will maintain a record of all its activities that undergo this evaluation. For actions that do not affect or are not likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise or its critical habitat, the Army will include in its record:

1. The title of the action;

2. A description of the proposed action;

3. Location;

4. Size; and

5. The rationale that it used to reach its determination regarding effects to the desert tortoise or its critical habitat.

For actions that are likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise or its critical habitat, the Army will include in its record:

1. The title of the proposed action;

2. A description of the proposed action;

3. Location;

4. Size;

5. The number of desert tortoises that are killed, injured, and moved from harm’s way;

6. The amount of habitat disturbed or lost, with a notation as to whether the affected area was designated critical habitat;

7. A list of authorized biologists who worked on actions covered by this consultation in the reporting year; and

8. A brief but comprehensive discussion of the protective measures used and whether the protective measures were effective. If the measures were not effective, the Army will explain why the measures did not function as expected and recommendations for implementing more effective measures.

In past consultations with the Army, the Service has authorized biologists to implement protective measures and handle desert tortoises on a project-by-project basis. Upon completion of this consultation, the Army will not request such authorization on a project-by-project basis.

From this point, any person approved by the Service to undertake the duties of an authorized biologist for Army actions may also perform those duties on future Army actions if those actions are within the scope of this biological opinion. If the Army determines that an authorized biologist is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the Army will notify the Service at the earliest possible time it makes this determination.

The Service and Army agree actions proposed in the future may result in effects that may be beyond the scope of those considered in this biological opinion. In the case of such actions, the Army and Service will determine whether this biological opinion sufficiently considered the proposed actions’ effects to the desert tortoise and its critical habitat and whether re-initiation of formal consultation or initiation of a separate consultation is appropriate.

If staff from the Service and Army cannot agree on a course of action after discussions on this or other issues, any disagreement will be elevated to the Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office’s Division Chief for Fort Irwin and the Army’s Natural and Cultural Resources Program Manager for resolution. If further elevation is required, the Assistant Field Supervisor of the Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office and the Director of Public Works at Fort Irwin will be contacted to resolve the issue. Although the elevation of issues is likely to be an infrequent occurrence, the Army and Service consider this procedure to be a useful tool to maintain efficient processes and a healthy working relationship between our agencies.

The Army will provide the Service with an annual report of the activities that it conducts under the auspices of this consultation. The annual report will include the information that the Army will maintain in its records for any activity it determined was likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise or its critical habitat, as described in this section. The annual report will be provided to the Service by January 31 of each year this biological opinion is in effect.

This biological opinion will remain in effect until the Army or Service determines that it is no longer meeting the agency’s needs. If such a circumstance arises, the agency reaching this conclusion will notify the other agency at the earliest possible time. If any of the thresholds for re-initiation of formal consultation are met (see Re-initiation Notice section of this biological opinion), the Army and Service will work together and revisit the consultation. If the Army and Service determine that this biological opinion requires changes that do not rise to the level of re-initiation, they will work together to amend the procedures contained herein.

The annual report will also contain information on conservation activities that the Army undertook in the previous year. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, acquisition of land through the Readiness and Environmental Preparedness Initiative and results of research on desert tortoises conducted or funded by the Army. In some cases, such as when the Army funds rangewide sampling of the desert tortoise, the Army would not provide the results of the work because the Service would summarize these findings in its annual reporting on the sampling effort.

The Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office’s Division Chief for Fort Irwin and the Army’s Natural and Cultural Resources Program Manager, and appropriate staff, will meet annually to review how this consultation is functioning and to discuss any potentially important events in the upcoming year. If the Service and Army agree that such a meeting is unnecessary in any given year, the meeting may be cancelled.

Criteria for Use in Reaching Appropriate Determinations

The Army will use the following protocol to determine the appropriate level of consultation required for each proposed action.

1. Projects in which any effects would occur outside of desert tortoise habitat would have no effect on the species; the Army will document its determinations in these situations for its own records but would not need to contact the Service. If the Army requires technical assistance from the Service to determine if suitable habitat for desert tortoises would be affected, it will contact us by phone or email.

2. If the following criteria are met, a determination of not likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise would be appropriate:

a. The project is within habitat of the desert tortoise;

b. Desert tortoise habitat is present, but degraded or disturbed, in the project area. For the purposes of this consultation, the Army and Service consider degraded habitat to be habitat, which has been affected by previous activities. Degraded habitat will generally exhibit a lower diversity and density of native shrubs and disrupted substrates than undisturbed habitat. The Army and Service consider certain washes to be disturbed habitat; the fundamental characteristic for such areas is the evidence of the project activity would no longer be visible after an event where water flows in the wash. The loss or disturbance of a minor amount of undisturbed habitat may also be considered as being not likely to adversely affect the species, when considered with regard to its distribution in the action area; and

c. Neither desert tortoises nor their diagnostic sign are observed during surveys or a habitat assessment.

d. If the Army concludes a determination of adverse impact to the desert tortoise is not clear, it will provide a verbal description of the habitat and appropriate photographs of the project site to the Service that will assist in the determination.

3. If the following criteria are met, a determination of not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for the desert tortoise will be appropriate:

a. The project is within designated critical habitat, but the primary constituent elements of desert tortoise critical habitat are not present;

b. The primary constituent elements would not be affected by the proposed project; or

c. Effects to the primary constituent elements would be so minor that they are not measurable when considered within the context of the critical habitat unit. Such effects may occur, for example, when a narrow strip of land supporting the primary constituent elements of critical habitat at the edge of an existing road may be affected by an action.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Unless otherwise noted, the information in this section is from the integrated natural resources management plan for Fort Irwin (Army 2006–2011). The mission of Fort Irwin is to provide tough, realistic training for Army brigade combat teams under full battle conditions. Fort Irwin’s battlefield is large and instrumented to record training activities; the instrumentation allows the Army to provide continuous and real-time feedback and heighten learning at all levels. Fort Irwin also serves as a laboratory and data source for training, doctrine, organization, and equipment.

Training on maneuver lands includes brigade-level force-on-force training and other operations that occur on a more limited scale. Brigade-level training generally involves 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers and 1,400 vehicles during an exercise. Force-on-force training is the movement of soldiers and equipment over the battlefield in realistic training exercises.

The Army also develops and operates training sites that specifically address military operations in urban terrain. These sites, which can vary in size from 500 meters by 500 meters to 4 square kilometers depending on their use and number of facilities to be replicated, simulate urban combat environments in which soldiers may find themselves worldwide; they provide soldiers the opportunity for combat training in realistic urbanized environments. Training may involve numerous soldiers and role players living at some facilities for up to 18 days at a time.

All of the activities on Fort Irwin require the Army to continually maintain and upgrade its infrastructure. It also implements numerous activities that are related to overall management of the installation. The Army generally divided these activities into five categories (Everly 2014).

Training Area Activities

These activities include: monitoring and maintenance of improvised explosive device training culverts; deconstruction/relocation of existing training villages; construction of new training villages; deconstruction of existing forward operating bases (removal of concrete slabs, removal of command and control buildings, leveling of protective berms, removal of HESCO barriers [HESCO barriers are large wire and canvas containers that units can fill with soil that are used to provide cover]); construction of forward operating bases to include building protective berms, installing HESCO barriers, pouring concrete pads for tents, and construction of small command and control facilities; installation of trench complexes serving as defensive positions, obstacles for breach training activities, and gap crossing exercises; construction/refurbishment of helipads (compacted dirt/gravel or poured concrete); construction/refurbishment of forward arming and refuel points (compacted dirt/gravel or poured concrete); building/refurbishing unmanned aerial vehicle runways (compacted dirt/paved); refurbishing Goldstone Airfield to include realignment of Goddard Road, construction of a hangar facility and related infrastructure (utilities, fiber);

building/refurbishing flight landing strips (compacted dirt) for use in conducting forced entry and airfield seizure and lodgement expansion operations. Construction of flight landing strips will include a mock tower, mock fuel storage facility, taxiway, aircraft parking area, and temporary aircraft refueling pad. All of these activities involve the use of heavy construction equipment (bulldozers, graders, dump trucks) to clear and compact dirt in the construction footprint. Access to the construction sites will be by existing dirt/paved roads. Drop zone areas, in proximity to the flight landing strip locations, may also be designated. Although drop zones normally do not require construction activities, they are areas used for parachutists to land in and for dropping equipment and supplies, by parachute, for use by soldiers delivered to the battlefield by parachute. Impacts to designated drop zone lands result from the landing of parachutists and their equipment.

Training Area Management/Safety Activities

These activities include: maneuver trail improvement and maintenance involving the re-contouring of existing trails, installation of gabions and rolling ditches and repair of existing dirt trails as a result of use/erosion events; monitoring and maintenance of erosion control culverts;

application of dust suppressants on dirt trails (soil cement/magnesium chloride) on Fort Irwin and the Manix Trail right-of-way; closing of existing dirt trails; development of new trail networks; installation of communication sites consisting of antennae construction (including a concrete pad) or refurbishment of an existing structure, installation of communication equipment cabinets, installation of power generation equipment/hardwire sites from existing utility lines;

installation of fiber optic lines and associated equipment vaults; habitat restoration to include mechanical/hand seeding and emplacement of native plant seedlings; move/add/replace targets to include digging of target pits to house target lifting mechanisms; building, upgrading, maintaining combat training ranges (small arms ranges, hand grenade range, urban assault range) including building/replacing backstop berms, digging fighting positions, digging up/replacing/emplacing new electrical wiring and fiber, emplacing new target lifting mechanisms, repairing/replacing/installing new range towers, emplacing safety markers, building shoot houses and urban obstacles/targets. All of these activities involve the use of heavy construction equipment (bulldozers, graders, backhoes, dump trucks) to clear and compact dirt in the construction footprint. Access to the construction sites will be by existing dirt/paved roads.

Cantonment Infrastructure Activities

These activities include: utilities (water, sewer, gas, electric) maintenance, repair, replacement and installation of new lines and associated structures (water tanks, transformers, LPG tanks, etc.); destruction/removal of existing facilities; maintenance, repair, replacement, and/or construction of new facilities (barracks, hospital, housing, water treatment plant, company operations facilities, aircraft hangars, warehouses, maintenance buildings, office buildings, headquarters buildings, etc.); activation of new units to include construction/renovation/repair of related housing, office, maintenance and training facilities; deactivation of existing units to include destruction/removal of facilities no longer needed and the repair/renovation of associated housing, office, maintenance and training facilities; construction, repair and maintenance of roads and related structures (culverts, bridges, overpasses, etc.); fence installation, maintenance, and repair; and sign installation, maintenance and repair.

Alternative Energy Activities

These activities include construction, operation and maintenance of alternative energy sites within the boundaries of Fort Irwin (includes grading or leveling of the site, installation of the facility to generate alternative energy, trenching for laying of electrical wire, installation of associated infrastructure, interconnection to existing electrical transmission capabilities, etc.);

construction of shade structures with attached solar technology and related electrical connection infrastructure; and construction of a waste-to-energy facility including excavation of materials from the existing landfill, modification to existing baler/solid waste receiving facilities, and construction of a pyrolytic conversion facility (building, concrete pad, utilities) for conversion of solid waste to electrical energy.

Recreation and Related Activities

These activities include hunting of state-authorized game species; planning, constructing (identifying the course route, digging pits to be filled with water, creating dirt mounds over which contestants must run, etc.) and deconstructing “mud run” courses; conducting tours of old mining towns and historic sites using off-road-capable buses (tours will use existing roads and trails); off-highway vehicle use following designated routes; and construction, operation and deconstruction of a paintball course. Recreation activities may also include rock hounding in designated areas; camping in designated areas; construction, operation, maintenance and deconstruction of athletic fields and playground sites (in the cantonment area); and the erection, use and tear down of tents, portable generators, trailers, booths, etc. for use during holiday celebrations (in the cantonment area).

Research and Education Activities

These activities include: sensitive species inventory, survey and monitoring (includes access by existing roads to survey/monitoring sites; surveys/monitoring will be conducted on foot or by vehicle driven at very low speeds); digging, fence installation, burning, trimming, seeding, equipment installation (cameras, weather stations, etc.) in support of research projects; off-limits area fence installation, maintenance, and repair; Siebert stake installation, maintenance and repair; off-limits area sign installation, maintenance and repair; fire management in off-limits areas (respond to wildfires); and feral burro removal.

The Army will also undertake numerous actions in the course of managing natural resources on Fort Irwin. These measures include but are not limited to:

1. Continuing the control of invasive species to reduce degradation of plant and wildlife habitats on Fort Irwin;

2. Continuing control of feral burros on Fort Irwin to better protect natural resources;

3. Undertaking surveys of project sites and buffers that may affect desert tortoises to document plant and animal species; and

4. Conducting post-project monitoring of certain activities that have the potential to affect federally listed species. The purpose of this monitoring is to ensure that avoidance and minimization measures have been properly implemented, to assess the effectiveness of these measures, and to allow for modifications to minimization measures, as needed.

Protective Measures

The Army will continue to implement procedures designed to minimize impacts to desert tortoises. These procedures will ensure that potential impacts are minimized by being assessed during the project planning and approval process and monitored for compliance and effectiveness.

1. The Army will minimize incidental injury and mortality of desert tortoises by employing the following measures. Actual measures will be based on the results of site-specific field surveys and will be implemented, as needed, at the professional judgment of the Army’s environmental personnel (hereafter ‘environmental staff’), including:

a. Clearly delineating the boundaries of new construction or new target and test sites on the ground by flagging, survey lath, or wooden stakes;

b. Placing signs, as needed, to indicate the need to reduce speeds on roadways and that activities are to be strictly confined to the project site;

c. Biological monitoring of operations involved with the active removal of desert tortoise habitat known to be near the project site. Activities within existing test and target operations (operations including area preparation, target set-up, the actual test event and the target removal and site clean-up) would not require biological monitoring. The purpose of the biological monitoring is to ensure that avoidance and minimization measures have been properly implemented, to assess the effectiveness of these measures and to allow for modifications to minimization measures, as needed; and

d. Placing desert tortoise-proof fences around projects or portions of projects in desert tortoise habitat where the probability of injuring or killing a desert tortoise, without such fencing in place, is considered to be reasonably foreseeable.

2. Desert tortoise burrows located within 100 feet of the limits of construction or establishment of new target or test site boundaries will be protected by conducting additional on-site project personnel briefings (tailgate). If necessary, the Army will either

(1) place temporary (short-term) desert tortoise-proof fencing to completely enclose the burrow at a minimum distance of 20 feet from the burrow, or (2) for longer duration construction projects, fence the limits of construction to avoid any potential impacts to desert tortoises.

3. Desert tortoise burrows that cannot be avoided will be excavated by hand either by or under the direct supervision of an authorized biologist. Burrow excavation and subsequent handling of any desert tortoises will follow the most up-to-date guidelines that are acceptable to the Service.

4. The Army will submit the credentials of personnel to be designated as authorized biologists to the Service at least 30 days prior to the onset of the activities to be monitored. The general qualifications and the request form are located at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/surveys-protocol.html

5. All trash and debris will be promptly contained within containers that common ravens (Corvus corax) cannot access. These containers will be regularly removed from project sites to reduce the attractiveness of the area to common ravens and other desert tortoise predators.

6. Environmental staff will conduct awareness briefings for all personnel working in desert tortoise habitat. These briefings will be conducted either in person or via a video presentation of the briefing. At a minimum, the briefings will include discussions of:

a. General provisions of the Endangered Species Act;

b. Necessity for adhering to the provisions of the Act;

c. Potential for civil and criminal penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act;

d. Specific requirements for complying with the provisions of the Act as they relate to each project;

e. The exact boundaries of the site within which the project activities may be accomplished;

f. Procedures to be accomplished by project personnel should any problem arise with respect to complying with environmental requirements;

g. General behavior and ecology of the desert tortoise and its sensitivity to human activities;

h. All personnel will be advised of the potential for desert tortoises to take refuge under vehicles and of the proper procedures to follow in that event; and

i. Specific procedures to be followed to move a desert tortoise that may be in imminent danger (on a heavily traveled road, on an active project site, or under a vehicle).

7. All personnel will check beneath their vehicles while in desert tortoise habitat prior to moving the vehicle. If a desert tortoise is found beneath the vehicle, it will be moved by environmental staff or by project personnel in accordance with guidelines provided to them during the awareness briefings. The Army will report any removals of desert tortoises to the Service in its annual report.

http://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/surveys-protocol.html

8. The primary means to eliminate or minimize impacts to desert tortoises or their habitat will continue to be implemented through the use of avoidance and minimization procedures. These methods include the following:

a. To the extent possible, project sites will be selected so that they are located in previously disturbed areas;

b. Surveys for desert tortoises will be accomplished for any project that occurs in potential habitat. Surveys will be conducted to support the analysis conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act for new surface disturbing projects and where new disturbance may occur in desert tortoise habitat. Biologists will conduct surveys in accordance with the most current Service survey guidelines. Surveys may be conducted year-round due to the short timelines associated with the Army’s activities;

c. If new projects are located in desert tortoise habitat, environmental staff will, in conjunction with project proponents, attempt to reduce impacts by assessing the feasibility of adjusting a project’s size, footprint, orientation, and construction method;

d. If new projects will be located where desert tortoises are known to occupy the project site, desert tortoises will be relocated by Service-authorized biologists prior to start of any activities. Authorized biologists are responsible for adhering to Service protocols and guidelines for handling and relocating desert tortoises; and

e. New land-disturbing activities that have occurred within habitats that support desert tortoises will continue to be documented in annual reports submitted to the Service.

9. The Army will maintain coordination with Service and fulfill annual reporting requirements.

Management of Common Ravens

The integrated natural resources management plan (Army 2006–2011) for Fort Irwin notes that the Army will alter landfills and sewage ponds to reduce the number of predators (including common ravens) that use these sites. The Army will also implement predator control programs and participate in regional plans sponsored by the Desert Managers Group to control common ravens. As a standard practice, the Army requires soldiers and contractors to bag and dispose of all trash and food items generated by training, construction, and maintenance activities.

Relocation of Desert Tortoises

In the event that future development or activities would result in the clearing of suitable desert tortoise habitat, the Army would relocate desert tortoises from these sites to other habitat.

Depending on the type of development and its location, desert tortoises may be moved to suitable habitat immediately off-site or to other suitable habitat on the installation where they would be less likely to be affected by the Army’s activities; the Army may move desert tortoises to a conservation area if it provides the best fit. The authorized biologist and Natural Resources Program Manager will determine the appropriate locations. The authorized biologist will examine all desert tortoises that are moved away from the site of their capture for clinical signs of disease prior to moving them. If a desert tortoise exhibits clinical signs of disease, in consultation with the Service it will either be moved immediately off site or removed from the wild if the Service determines that is the best course of action.

On occasions when desert tortoises may be at risk of being injured or killed by other types of activities (e.g., it is on or near a road), the Army will assess the situation and implement the most appropriate measure. The Fort Irwin Natural Resources Program Manager or the unit’s Environmental Compliance Team personnel will choose from a suite of measures depending on the circumstances. For example, if a desert tortoise is in a road and blocking a few vehicles, the drivers will avoid the desert tortoise by driving around it. If the desert tortoise is on a road that will be used throughout the day, the Army will notify other units in the area and may assign someone to monitor the desert tortoise. In some cases, the Army may be familiar with the animal’s burrow(s) and use of the area and may move it out of danger into areas it frequents.

Extent of Future Development

The Previous Consultations in the Action Area section of this biological opinion describes the previous biological opinions that addressed the Army’s training activities at Fort Irwin (Service 1991a, 2012e). In these biological opinions, we analyzed the effects of the Army’s various training activities on the desert tortoise and its critical habitat throughout Fort Irwin, with the exception of the western expansion area. (We describe the current situation in the western expansion area in the Previous Consultations in the Action Area section of this biological opinion.) Consequently, because we have already conducted these analyses, this biological opinion addresses only the development of new infrastructure at Fort Irwin and the operation and maintenance of new and existing infrastructure.

To ensure that its activities do not result in numerous injuries to or mortalities of desert tortoises, the Army has proposed to examine any incident that results in injury or mortality and determine whether additional protective measures are needed to reduce the potential for future injury or mortality. The Army may informally consult with the Service regarding the need for or nature of additional measures if it so chooses. The Army has also proposed to re-initiate formal consultation if five desert tortoises are killed or injured in a calendar year as a result of the actions considered in this biological opinion.

Past training activities at Fort Irwin have disturbed most areas within the valley bottoms and lower alluvial fans within the installation’s original boundary; the Service’s (2012e) biological opinion on the use of additional training lands in the Eastgate parcel and the southern expansion area considered the effects of training on habitat, including critical habitat, in these areas. In combination, these biological opinions recognized that training activities, including force-on-force maneuvers and the construction and operation of training sites for military operations in urban terrain, have either already removed (in the case of the area within the original boundary) or would eventually remove most habitat value from training areas. Additionally, we recognize that, even considering the future development of solar fields at Fort Irwin, the development of new infrastructure would be a minor fraction of the area that would be affected by training;

consequently, the Army and Service agreed that we would not include a threshold for re-initiation of formal consultation in this document that addressed the disturbance of habitat in general or critical habitat.

Recovery Activities

The Army has provided funding for the Service’s implementation of annual range-wide sampling; it will continue to have rangewide sampling as a standing funding request to headquarters in the future. The Army maintains a set of pens in the western expansion area that it will continue to make available to research projects on the desert tortoise. It will also work with the Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and others regarding the funding of and research on research that will provide information useful to the recovery of the desert tortoise (e.g., survival of head-started juveniles, predation by coyotes (Canis latrans), and management of burros).

The Department of Defense will also investigate opportunities in the future, when funding is available, to participate in the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program; this program supports cost-sharing partnerships to acquire easements or other interests in land from willing sellers to preserve compatible land uses and sustain wildlife habitat near installations and ranges where the military operates, tests, and trains.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE MODIFICATION

DETERMINATIONS

Jeopardy Determination

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. “Jeopardize the continued existence of” means 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 Code of Federal Regulations 402.02).

The jeopardy analysis in this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) the status of the species, which describes the rangewide condition of the desert tortoise, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the environmental baseline, which analyzes the condition of the desert tortoise in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the desert tortoise; (3) the effects of the action, which determine the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the desert tortoise; and (4) the cumulative effects, which evaluate the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the action area on the desert tortoise.

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the current status of the desert tortoise, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the desert tortoise in the wild.

Adverse Modification Determination

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of listed species. This biological opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat at 50 Code of Federal Regulations

402.02. Instead, we have relied on the statutory provisions of the Act to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat.

In accordance with policy and regulation, the adverse modification analysis in this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) the status of critical habitat, which describes the rangewide condition of designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise in terms of primary constituent elements, the factors responsible for that condition, and the intended recovery function of the critical habitat overall; (2) the environmental baseline, which analyzes the condition of the critical habitat in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the recovery role of the critical habitat in the action area; (3) the effects of the action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated and interdependent activities on the primary constituent elements and how that will influence the recovery role of the affected critical habitat units; and (4) cumulative effects, which evaluates the effects of future non-Federal activities in the action area on the primary constituent elements and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units.

For purposes of the adverse modification determination, the effects of the proposed Federal action on the critical habitat of the desert tortoise are evaluated in the context of the rangewide condition of the critical habitat, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if the critical habitat range wide would remain functional (or would retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established in areas of currently unsuitable but capable habitat) to serve its intended recovery role for the desert tortoise.

STATUS OF THE DESERT TORTOISE AND CRITICAL HABITAT

Status of the Desert Tortoise

Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires the Service to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review); these reviews, at the time of their completion, provide the most up-to-date information on the rangewide status of the species. For this reason, we are appending the 5-year review of the status of the desert tortoise (Appendix 1; Service 2010) to this biological opinion and are incorporating it by reference to provide most of the information needed for this section of the biological opinion. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the relevant information in the 5-year review.

In the 5-year review, the Service discusses the status of the desert tortoise as a single distinct population segment and provides information on the Federal Register notices that resulted in its listing and the designation of critical habitat. The Service also describes the desert tortoise’s ecology, life history, spatial distribution, abundance, habitats, and the threats that led to its listing (i.e., the five-factor analysis required by section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act). In the 5-year review, the Service concluded by recommending that the status of the desert tortoise as a threatened species be maintained.

With regard to the status of the desert tortoise as a distinct population segment, the Service concluded in the 5-year review that the recovery units recognized in the original and revised recovery plans (Service 1994 and 2011, respectively) do not qualify as distinct population segments under the Service’s distinct population segment policy (61 Federal Register 4722;

February 7, 1996). We reached this conclusion because individuals of the listed taxon occupy habitat that is relatively continuously distributed, exhibit genetic differentiation that is consistent with isolation-by-distance in a continuous-distribution model of gene flow, and likely vary in behavioral and physiological characteristics across the area they occupy as a result of the transitional nature of, or environmental gradations between, the described subdivisions of the Mojave and Colorado deserts.

In the 5-year review, the Service summarizes information with regard to the desert tortoise’s ecology and life history. Of key importance to assessing threats to the species and to developing and implementing a strategy for recovery is that desert tortoises are long lived, require up to 20 years to reach sexual maturity, and have low reproductive rates during a long period of reproductive potential. The number of eggs that a female desert tortoise can produce in a season is dependent on a variety of factors including environment, habitat, availability of forage and drinking water, and physiological condition. Predation seems to play an important role in clutch failure. Predation and environmental factors also affect the survival of hatchlings.

In the 5-year review, the Service also discusses various means by which researchers have attempted to determine the abundance of desert tortoises and the strengths and weaknesses of those methods. Due to differences in area covered and especially to the non-representative nature of earlier sample sites, data gathered by the Service’s current rangewide monitoring program cannot be reliably compared to information gathered through other means at this time.

The Service provides a summary table of the results of rangewide monitoring, initiated in 2001, in the 5-year review. This ongoing sampling effort is the first comprehensive attempt to determine the densities of desert tortoises across their range. Figure 1 of the 5-year review provides a summary of data collected from 2001 through 2007; we summarize data from the 2008 through 2012 sampling efforts in subsequent reports (Service 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d).

The Desert Tortoise Recovery Office (Service 2014) used these annual density estimates to evaluate rangewide trends in the density of desert tortoises over time. This analysis indicates that densities in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit have increased by approximately

13.6 percent per year since 2004, with the rate of increase apparently resulting from increased survival of adults and subadults moving into the adult size class. The analysis also indicates that the populations in the other 4 recovery units are declining: Upper Virgin River (-5.1 percent), Eastern Mojave (-6.0 percent), Western Mojave (-8.6 percent), and Colorado Desert (-3.4 percent; however, densities the Joshua Tree and Piute Valley conservation areas within this unit seem to be increasing). Figure 1 shows linear trends in the log-transformed densities in each desert tortoise conservation area by recovery unit. Data for the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit are from 1999 to the present; data for all other recovery units are from 2004 to the present.

Allison (2014) also evaluated changes in size distribution of desert tortoises since 2001. In the Western Mojave and Colorado Desert recovery units, the relative number of juveniles to adults indicates that juvenile numbers are declining faster than adults. In the Eastern Mojave, the number of juvenile desert tortoises is also declining, but not as rapidly as the number of adults.

In the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit, trends in juvenile numbers are similar to those of adults; in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, the number of juveniles is increasing, but not as rapidly as are adult numbers in that recovery unit. Juvenile numbers, like adult densities, are responding in a directional way, with increasing, stable, or decreasing trends, depending on the recovery unit where they area found.

In the 5-year review, the Service provides a brief summary of habitat use by desert tortoises; the revised recovery plan contains more detailed information (Service 2011). In the absence of specific and recent information on the location of habitable areas of the Mojave Desert, especially at the outer edges of this area, the 5-year review also describes and relies heavily on a quantitative, spatial habitat model for the desert tortoise north and west of the Colorado River that incorporates environmental variables such as precipitation, geology, vegetation, and slope and is based on occurrence data of desert tortoises from sources spanning more than 80 years, including data from the 2001 to 2005 rangewide monitoring surveys (Nussear et al. 2009). The model predicts the probability that desert tortoises will be present in any given location;

calculations of the amount of desert tortoise habitat in the 5-year review and in this biological opinion use a threshold of 0.5 or greater predicted value for potential desert tortoise habitat. The model does not account for anthropogenic effects to habitat and represents the potential for occupancy by desert tortoises absent these effects.

Figure 1. Rangewide trends in the density of desert tortoises.

To begin integrating anthropogenic activities and the variable risk levels they bring to different parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts, the Service completed an extensive review of the threats known to affect desert tortoises at the time of their listing and updated that information with more current findings in the 5-year review. The review follows the format of the five-factor analysis required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The Service described these threats as part of the process of its listing (55 Federal Register 12178; April 2, 1990), further discussed them in the original recovery plan (Service 1994), and reviewed them again in the revised recovery plan (Service 2011).

To understand better the relationship of threats to populations of desert tortoises and the most effective manner to implement recovery actions, the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office is developing a spatial decision support system that models the interrelationships of threats to…