United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service		 Montana Go to Accessibility Information
Skip to Page Content




Programmatic Biological Assessment Overview

I. Introduction
II. Consultations
III. Programmatic Agreement
IV. Species' Habitat Screens
V. Conclusion
Biology Forms

This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format.

Programmatic Biological Assessment Overview (PDF; 44 KB)


I. Introduction

As a Federal agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is required to review the possible effects of proposed federal actions on threatened, endangered and proposed species and their habitats. Threatened, endangered, and proposed species are managed under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205, as amended). For additional information, please refer to the eFOTG, Section II, Part D. Threatened and Endangered Species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species, and shall insure any action authorized, funded, or implemented by the agency is not likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat (16 USC 1536).

NRCS submitted a Programmatic Biological Assessment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) which laid the ground work for a programmatic agreement between the two agencies. The purpose of this biological assessment is to describe and analyze the adequacy of habitat screens proposed for use in making determinations for simple, straightforward, NRCS-funded projects that have insignificant or discountable effects on threatened and endangered species in Montana. NRCS state and area office biological staffs throughout Montana have developed this assessment in order to assist with the conservation planning process.

Programmatic Biological Assessment full document (PDF; 208 KB)

The Biological Assessment (BA) presented the first in a series of habitat screens. The listed species analyzed in the first chapter of this document is the Canada lynx. Subsequent amendments will include additional plant and wildlife screens and background information pertaining to all other listed species in Montana (grizzly bear, bald eagle, piping plover, water howellia, Ute ladies’ tresses, bull trout, Spalding’s campion, black-footed ferret, gray wolf, whooping crane, least tern, pallid sturgeon, and white sturgeon). This species list was confirmed in March 2007 by checking the FWS, Montana Ecological Services Field Office’s website for current listed species information.

II. Consultations

There are two types of possible consultations with the FWS: informal and formal. The programmatic agreement with the FWS was completed through the informal consultation process. An informal consultation can be conducted if a project uses practices that would not adversely affect a listed species. If a practice may potentially adversely affect a listed species then NRCS staff, via the area biologist, will need to contact the FWS and discuss the possibility of a formal consultation for that project. If a project and all of its practices have been determined to have no effect on a listed species, then NRCS does not need to consult with FWS at all.

The formal definitions used for determining the effect a practice will have on a listed species are as follows:

  • "No effect" means there will be no impacts, positive or negative, to listed or proposed resources. Generally, this means no listed resources will be exposed to the action and its environmental consequences. Concurrence from the FWS is not required.
  • "May affect, but not likely to adversely affect" means that all effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and include those effects that are undetectable, not measurable, or cannot be evaluated. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur.
  • "May affect, and is likely to adversely affect" means that listed resources are likely to be exposed to the action or its environmental consequences and will respond in a negative manner to the exposure.

III. Programmatic Agreement

The interagency programmatic agreement covers all NRCS projects and practices that receive financial assistance in Montana through a federally authorized program and have been pre-determined to have a MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT (NLAA) determination for threatened and endangered species in Montana. These may include cost-sharing assistance through any of the following NRCS conservation programs: Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Conservation Security Program, Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, Grassland Reserve Program, Conservation Innovation Grants, the Wetlands Reserve Program, Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program.

Each proposed project will undergo an evaluation process to determine if it properly fits within a programmatic approach to consultation that would result in a NLAA determination. The screening process also provides rationale for ‘no effect’ projects; however, these are not subject to consultation and will not be discussed hereafter. For example, "Habitat Determination Screens for Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Montana" (available for download from Biology Forms) contains the specific information needed for determining lynx habitat at a proposed project site.

It is possible that even though a practice is identified in the screens, standard consultation procedures may still be required if there is any ambiguity surrounding it. The NRCS field office district conservationist is responsible for implementing the screening process and determining the appropriate course of action.

If the proposed actions are fully compliant with the species’ habitat screens and the screens lead to NLAA, the proposed actions (project) will be covered by the programmatic agreement with the FWS. The project can proceed once the appropriate documentation is in place. All project effects are documented on a "Consultation Summary Sheet for Programmatic Biological Assessment" (available for download from Biology Forms). This sheet will be used to document all species affected by an NRCS-funded project.

Following form completion, electronic copies of the consultation summary sheet and applicable species’ screens will be sent to the NRCS area biologist for final review and signature. Each area biologist will then randomly select two projects from their respective area for an audit. The resulting ten consultation summary sheets will then be forwarded to the state biologist by September 15 of each year.

The statewide collection of consultation summary sheets will be submitted from the NRCS state office to the FWS no later than September 30 of each year. The summary sheets will be reviewed by FWS staff and any comments and/or suggested modifications will be incorporated into the annual review process of the biological assessment and species’ screens. A review of this biological assessment and the subsequent species’ screens will be conducted on an annual basis by an NRCS-led review team. Members of this review team will include the state resource conservationist, the state biologist, area biologists and FWS biologists. Amendments and additions to the BA and species’ screens will be submitted in writing to the FWS in November each year.

Need for Re-Assessment Based on Changed Conditions

The biological assessment findings are based on the best current data and scientific information available. A revised biological assessment must be prepared by NRCS staff if: (1) new information reveals effects which may impact threatened, endangered, and proposed species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this assessment; (2) the proposed action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect which was not considered in this assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or habitat identified which may be affected by the action.

IV. Species' Habitat Screens

To determine whether a project is covered by the programmatic screening process (that is, individual species’ habitat screens), the proposed conservation practices will be compared against a list of NRCS practices described at the back of each species’ screen, as seen in the appendices of "Habitat Determination Screens for Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Montana" (available for download from Biology Forms).

If the programmatic screening concurrence process cannot be applied to every practice involved in the project, the standard Section 7 consultation process will be required. Standard consultation refers to the process whereby an NRCS biologist begins a dialogue with a FWS biologist to determine the appropriate consultation procedures. Typically this involves contacting the FWS to apprise them of the potential effects of an NRCS-funded project. This will enable both agencies to reach a consensus on the effects of the project and to determine if informal consultation is sufficient or if the project should proceed to formal consultation. After NRCS and FWS agree on a consultation procedure, the action agency biologist (NRCS state biologist) will submit the appropriate request and documentation to the FWS for concurrence or a biological opinion.

The following criteria describe overall considerations that apply to the proposed projects that meet the NLAA criteria.

Conditions Common to All Project Types
  • This biological assessment covers those NRCS projects where the determination of effects clearly leads to a NLAA determination. More complex projects for which a listed species’ concerns are not fully covered in this programmatic biological assessment must proceed through the standard Section 7 consultation process.
  • If one practice does not meet the habitat screening criteria, then standard consultation procedures will be followed for the entire project unless this practice is eliminated from the proposed plan. In other words, if one practice does not easily fit the screening criteria, the entire project must be done as an individual consultation with the FWS. It is also possible to use the screens to document the practices which do meet the screening criteria. Be sure to include this documentation alongside the analysis for the practices that do not meet the screening criteria in your consultation document with FWS.
  • As always, cumulative effects must be considered; cumulative effects findings may require use of the standard consultation processes. See formal definition below.
  • Final decisions in situations that present some ambiguity regarding the application of the habitat screens and the determination of effects for compliance with the ESA must be made by a qualified wildlife biologist. These include NRCS area and state biologists with the potential for assistance from FWS biologists and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologists.
  • In no case does this programmatic biological assessment cover any project and/or individual practices that have the potential to cause or increase the likelihood of take as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulations. For a formal definition of take see page xix of the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook:

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (PDF; 146 KB)

Cumulative Effects Analysis

Cumulative effects will be evaluated and documented on the consultation summary sheet during the initial planning stages of any NRCS-funded projects. Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-federal (state, local government, or private) activities on endangered and threatened species or critical habitat that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area during the course of the federal activity subject to consultation. An action area, as defined by the ESA, includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and is not limited merely to the immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR 402.02]. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this programmatic agreement because they require a separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.

Using the Habitat Screens
  1. Before visiting project site, conduct an initial search for Montana’s threatened and endangered species by county at the USFWS, Montana Field Office’s website. This website is updated with new species information every 90 days.
  2. If you have site specific information (i.e. Section, Township and Range), conduct a species specific search on the Montana Natural Heritage Program website.
  3. Once you have generated a species list for the project area, download (if available) the species’ habitat screens from Biology Forms on the Montana NRCS website.
  4. Also check the Montana NRCS Network Drive (F:) wildlife folder (f:\geodata\wildlife) for any maps that may have been created with specific habitat data for a listed species in Montana.
  5. Follow habitat screens for each species and document project effects.
  6. Once the screens are complete, summarize project effects to all affected listed species on the "Consultation Summary Sheet for Programmatic Biological Assessment" (available for download from Biology Forms).
  7. Keep a copy of the consultation summary sheets as well as the individual habitat screens in the landowner’s file.
  8. Send an electronic copy of each project’s consultation summary sheet to the area biologist. In September of each year, ten summary sheets will be randomly chosen from across Montana and sent to the state biologist for an audit.

VI. Conclusion

This Programmatic Biological Assessment Overview was designed to provide a condensed version of the interagency agreement between FWS and NRCS. It can be printed and used as a reference document when utilizing the habitat screens. The full Programmatic Biological Assessment is also available for download. If NRCS area or field staff require further information or clarifications, please contact the state biologist.

Programmatic Biological Assessment full document (PDF; 208 KB)
Programmatic Biological Assessment Overview (PDF; 44 KB)

< Back to Biology and Wildlife

Last Modified: 06/20/2008