Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11/03/98 TUE 08: 36 F.li 303 231 53&300316 SOLICITOR/DENYER <br /> <br />IdJ 012 <br /> <br />5. Where the Service believes jeopardy would result, it <br />must specify re~AnnRhlg and ~rudertt alternncivp.s to the <br />nl"'rinn lo/hich wOUld ::lv-aiel :leopardy ..i.J: doUY ",uch <br />alternatives are available. 16 a.s.c. '1536 (h) (3) (A). <br /> <br />6. Wh~re the Service reaches a no jeopardy conclusion <br />it must include an :l,nC'lidenta.1 -take statement:. 16 <br />U.S.C. .1536 (h) (4); 50 C.l"':R. 402.14 (i). Such an <br />incid'9ntal take statement, if followed, exempt.. the <br />action agency applicant from the ESA Section 9 taking <br />prohibitions. ESA S 7(0) (2:)., 16 U.s..C'. 1536(0) (2). <br /> <br />7. Caaes: <br /> <br />a. NatiOnal Wildlife Fed~ration v. Col~, 529 <br />~.2d 35i (5th Cir.), reh'a den~I~, 532 F.2d 1375, <br />c:ert:.' aenied, 42.9 U.S':"979 (1976) (must consider <br />indirect as well as direct impacts of agency <br />ac,tion) . <br /> <br />b. tompa~ Connor v. BUrfo~d, 848.F.2d.1441 (9th <br />Cir. i9.BB), ~ denie<;l, 489 U.S. 1012 (1989) <br />(agency issuance of a lease under Mineral Leasing <br />Act requires comprehensive analysis of exploration <br />and development impacts even though additlonal <br />environmental analysis also required at those' <br />later 'stages) ~ Park co~ev Resou~oe Council. <br />~na_ y. U.s. n~nartme~~ of ~9ri~ul~uF~1 &13 <br />F.Supp. 1182 (D.Wyo. 1985), aff'd, 8i7 F.2d 609 <br />(10th Cir. 1987) (Under NEPA, EIS at leasing stage <br />need not comprehensively discuss ,potential impact <br />of exploration and development because the lease <br />itself does not significantly impact the <br />environment; although the plaintiffs based their <br />claims on NEPA and the ESA, the appellate court <br />did not discuss the ESA) . <br /> <br />o. Siarra Club v.F1"~hlkQ, 534 F.2d 3.269 (ath <br />Cir. 18.76). <br /> <br />d. We~~erger vr Ramero-B~rcelo. 456 a.s~ 305 <br />(1981) ; <br /> <br />-. 11 - <br />