7852 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~'t~ "~1,--t, fEW [Vol. i- 1993] OF RAZORBACKS AND RESERVOIRS 61 s. Consultation . biological opin- developed."124 7(d) is in North n native groups ,lock the sale of ;ect endangered lewhat unusual ter Continental e United States event environ- of exploration. e of leases, not 'n. The district ine and Fisher- 1gement official ute a biological hus never been ed. The court cannot provide oposed a three- 1 was based on ernment could il it completed ~ oil lease sales :ite compliance 7(d) violation , ; to the agency , first prong of ogical opinion, ~onstitute sub- on 7(a)(2)). "128 North Slope held that there was not a jeopardy opinion for the oil lease sales and that the letter from NMFS to Interior, while not adequate as a biological opinion, did indicate that jeopardy was unlikely. 129 As for the second prong of the North Slope test, the dis- trict court wrote that: Congress enacted section 7(d) to preclude the investments oflarge sums of money in any endeavor if (1) at the time of the investment there was a reasonable likelihood that the project, at any stage of development, would violate section 7(a)(2), and (2) that investment was not salvageable (i.e. it could not be applied to either an alternative approach to the original endeavor or to another project).130 The court held (again) that the lease sales were not likely to violate section 7(a)(2), and that the only investments of re- sources proposed at the time of the suit were pre-exploration research activities which were valuable in their own right. Consequently, the second. prong was satisfied. The third prong of the North Slope test is a procedural standard. This component provides that the action agency must comply with the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2).131 The North Slope court held that since there was no biological opinion, not even one based on adequate informa- tion, the Department of the Interior could not proceed with the lease sales.132 On appeal, the D.C. Circuit noted that NMFS had re- garded its letter concerning the lease sales as a biological opinion.133 The court thus deferred to NMFS's judgment and held that the district court erred in ruling that the Depart- ment of the Interior was in violation of the consultation re- quirements of section 7(a)(2) for failing to obtain a biological opinion.134 The appellate court, however, expressed no disap- 2ccord H.R. CONF. .979 D.S.C.C.A.N. 129. [d. at 351. 130. [d. at 356 (footnotes omitted). 131. [d. at 357. 132. 486 F. Supp. at 352, 353. 133. 642 F.2d 589, 609-10 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 134. [d. at 610.