8012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

nomically and technologically feasible. It is conceiv- able, however, that there is no reasonable and prudent alternative that meets these standards. In this case the federal agency action could be enjoined altogether unless it is exempted by a special committee of high level, federal officials - the "God Squad". In practice, a reasonable and prudent alternative meeting these standards has almost always been suggested and appeals to the God Squad are rare. Exemptions by the God Squad are even rarer. In some cases, a federal action will incidentally "take" a listed species, but still not jeopardize its continued exis- tence or adversely modify its critical habitat. In these cases, the FWS can authorize such an incidental taking whenever it issues a biological opinion under Section 7(a)(2). Any harming or harassing of a listed species is defined as a taking. The extension of this definition to include any "significant habitat modification" that injures a listed species by impairing its essential behav- iors has recently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Sweet Home case. If a taking will be inci- dental to a federal action that does not jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat, the authorization by the FWS must specify the impact of the incidental taking, the measures that will minimize that impact, and the terms and conditions for imple- menting those mitigating measures. These measures mitigating the specified impact of an incidental take are legally distinct from any reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification. SECTION 10 Habitat conservation plans Even where a listed species will be taken by private or state action without any nexus to federal action, the FWS can issue a permit and authorize an incidental taking under Section 10 of the ESA upon approval of a habitat conservation plan (RCP). The applicant for such a permit must submit a plan that specifies the impact of the taking, the steps that will be taken to minimize that impact, the funding available to imple- ment those steps, the alternatives to the taking, and why those alternatives were rejected. After public com- ment on this plan, the FWS must issue the permit if: the taking of the listed species is incidental, the appli- cant will minimize and mitigate the impact of the tak- ing and will fund the RCP, and the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of species survival or recovery. There is no set time frame in Section 10 for development and approval of RCPs. Interrelationship with designated critical habitat The approval of an RCP would not seem to authorize the adverse modification of critical habitat, because critical habitat is essential to recovery. Moreover, a protective measure or habitat restoration action that mitigated a taking under an RCP may not be equiva- lent to a reasonable and prudent alternative that avoid- ed the adverse modification of critical habitat. The RCP would have to go beyond minimizing the impact of a taking, replace the critical habitat or its function, and enable recovery, if the RCP is to also qualify as a reasonable and prudent alternative to the adverse mod- ification of critical habitat. Experimental populations Under Section 10 of the ESA a population of a listed species may be designated as "experimental" by the FWS and may be released outside the current range of that species, if such a introduction would further its recovery. Before authorizing any release, the FWS must determine whether the population is "essential" to species survival. If the experimental population is deemed essential or is released into the national park or wildlife refuge system, it will still enjoy most of the 49