7393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Sec. 7(a-d)] 1.S essentially the same as the FWS regulations promulgated on January 4, 1978 (43 F.R. 870). A,.I.~> Eac~ Federal agency is required ~o request from the. Interior .secretary cu".\t~ 1.nformat1.on on whether endangered spec1.es may be present 1.n the reg1.on to be ~u\ affected by a project. If the Secretary advises that such a possibility \ exists, the Agency must complete within 180 days a biological assessment to identify endangered species that may be present. If a project could affect an endangered species, the Secretary must submit within 90 days a biological opinion stating whether in his view the proposed action will affect the species or its habitat, and he must suggest modifications to the project that will remove these effects. Neither the agency nor its licensee may make any "ir- reversible commitment of resources" that would foreclose such modifications during the consultation process. Further, if the biological opinion concludes that the action will adversely affect the species or its habitat, it must be altered in accordance with the opinion, or an exemption must be secured (see below). By explicitly stating that a project cannot proceed in defiance of an unfavorable biological opinion, the Amendments removed one source of ambiguity in the 1973 Act. But the Amendments also included some noteworthy changes that brought "flexibility" to the Act and allowed incorporation of other considerations under certain circumstances. The impetus for these changes was TVA v. Hill, which subordinated all objectives to the cause of endangered species protec- ti on: One would be hard pressed to find a statutory provision whose terms were any plainer than those of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. . . . This language admits of no exception. TVA vs. Hill, 8 ELR at 20517. It was felt by many Congressmen that this absolute interpretation was not what they had intended in the original Section 7, and the Act was amended to allow tradeoffs among competing objectives. The Congress made sure, however, that such tradeoffs were not to be made lightly; they were especially not to be made by the developing agency. Decisionmaking that would balance endangered species protection with other considerations was tightly centralized and made highly visible. 18