7852 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.~ 46 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [VoL 11 19931 ESA section 7(a)(2) imposes a two-part requirement on "any action authorized, funded, or carried out by"61 any fed- eral agency. Although section 7 applies only to federal actors, activities such as issuing permits to private persons often re- quire section 7 review. For example, a "dredge and fill per- mit" under section 404 of the Clean Water Act62 is required for almost any water project, and the Corps of Engineers' is- suance of section 404 permits is subject to section 7review.63 Section 7 requires that the federal agency "insure" that the action (1) is not "likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species" (the "no jeopardy" standard) or (2) "result in the destruction or adverse modification of[the criti- cal] habitat of such species" (the "no adverse modification" standard).64 The two standards tend to merge, as adverse modification of critical habitat may well jeopardize a species' survival. The "no adverse modification" standard, however, appears to require a lower threshold showing of harm to a species, as adverse modification is a section 7(a)(2) violation even when it does not threaten a species' survival.65 . The substantive requirements of section 7(a)(2) are im- plemented through "consultation" with FWS. Before under- taking any action which "may affect listed species or critical habitat whethe request sultati( the "bE can be tion's I reVIew; concluc consult ESA SE any pr: or' lITe' agency tiofl: or native Bi IfFW: ceed a naked able a formu action IfFW ~ ' . . _-.~1,' 1~ U.S.~. U53~(aX2) (1988). 62. 33 U.S.C.~1344 (l~88);'... . 63. See RiversIde Irrigation Dist. v. Andrews, 758 F.2d 508,512 (10th Cir. 1985); Nebraska v. Rural Electrification Admin., 12 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1156, 1172-73 (D. Neb. 1978). 64. 16 U.S.C. ~ 1536(a)(2) (1988). 65. See Colorado Wildlife Fed'n v. Turner, No. 92-F-884, slip op. at 7 (D. Colo. Oct. 27, 1992) (ordering FWS to designate critical habitat for razorback sucker: "Only by defining the critical habitat can modifications be scrutinized under the standard set forth in 16 D.S.C. ~ 1536(a)(2)."); Memorandum from Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2-3 (July 11, 1991) ("thresholds for Section 7 ~eopardy' and [adverse modification) are different . . . in most cases, designation of critical habitat may provide greater conservation benefits to the species"). But cf James Salzman, Evolution and Application of Critical Habitat Under the Endangered Species Act, 14 HARv. ENVTL. L. REV. 311, 324 (1990) (Although the thresholds are different, "when a court finds an adverse modification violation, it necessarily also finds a jeopardy violation." Therefore, in 'practice, "adverse modification has merged into jeopardy analysis, ceasing to be an independent protection."). (' ' sues :: elude steps the pl tion T' not Ie F autho tion , -':-" '.!..: "'.::~ .~ .'.l\ 'if. ;~ :. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 3- >J ., \' 'f, I' -..~. ',tIIt j >; .* ;~. .,. .,'.