WSP00396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OJ2373 19932 Federal Res\.ler I Vol. 61, No. 106 I Tue.day. Jun. 3, 1986 I Rul.. and Regulation. The "critlc.el h.bll.t" dennlllon contelned In the propo.ed rule only reCerred to thole .ectlon. of 50 CFR Partl17 and ZZ6 thai cont.ln tha !'... of thole aTe88 .0 dBIlgnated. The mechanlcll of the de.lgnatlan procel! are more properly conatde:-ed under the .ection I regul.tion. [SO CFR Pert IZ4]. For purpose. of detennlnlng whether eny or Iheir actlone I. likely to de.troy or adve",ely modify critical h.bltal. Federal.sgenciel involved in aectton 7 consultations need only be aware of thoae areas lhal have been designated by the Service.. critical habllal. Two cammenlera requested that a dennllion or crilical habilat be Included In the final rule. The Service note. that the requested definition III contained In the Act and need not be repeated here. "Cumulative effecta" Bnd "effect. of the action" are defined In '4{JZ.OZ of Ih. final regulation.. Under I4{JZ.14[g) (3) and (I) of the final rule. the Service will con.ider both the "effect. or the action" subject to consultation and "cumulative effects" of other activities in detennining whether the aclio:1 ia likely to i~opardjze the continued exilltence of a lisled species or result in the destrnction or adverse modification of criticel habitat. In delerminins the "effects of the action....the Director first will evaluate the statuI of the IIpecies or critical habitat at iSlIue. Thill will involve cQnsideration oC the pre.ent environment in which the species or critical habitat ex isis, as well all the environment that will exist when the aclion is completed. in tennll of the totality of fa..:lors affecting the IIpeciell or critical habitat. The evaluation will serve SI Ihe bale line for detennining the effeclll of the action on the speciel or crilicalpabitat. The .pecific faclon that fonn the environmental baseline are given in the definiCion of Ueffeets of the action." as requested by lome commenlere. "Errect. of the action" include the direct and indirect effects of the action that ill lubject to consultaUon. "Indirect errects'. are thOle that are cau,ed by Ihe aclion and are laler in time but are ltill realonably certain 10 uccur. They include the effects on lI.ted .pede. or criUcal habilat of fulure activiliel (hal are induced by the action lubiect to conlultation and that occur aner Ihat action I. completed. In . National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman, SZ9 F.zd 359 (Sth CIr. 1976). the Cour1 or Appeal. ror the Fifth Circuit round that "Indirect effeell" which can be expect.d to re.u1t mu.t be considered under .ectlon 7 of the Act. In thai c.e.e. the court enjolnad completion of a highway becau.e the De;>ertment of s-gr_. lXXlI(OO)(1I-MAY-lO-ll,24,21) Tran.port. ilon f.ned to con.lder the err.ct. to th. .ndallljered .endhlll cr.ne rrom rulurtl private development that would re.u/t from con.truclfon of the highway. Tha Servloa will con.lder the err.cl. 10 1I.led .peel.. from .uch future Bellville I that are r8l1onl!lbly certain to occur undl!lr the analYI'1 of "Indirect errecl.... The Service'. approach will be conol.tent with National Wildlife FederoJion v. CoJt1mon. and the Service decline. to nl!lrTOW the lcope of Its review (II' requelted by one commenter) In light of exlltlng ca.. law. Effect. of tha aclfon .1.0 Include dlnct and Indlncteffect. of acUon. that are Interrel.tad or Interdapendent with the proposal under consideraUon. Interrelaled l!IcUonl Irt! those that are par1 of a larger action .nd depend on the largar aclfon for !heir ju.liflc.eUon; Interdependent acUon. are tho.e that have no .lgnlficantlndependent utility apar1 rrom the acUon that I. under considera tion. AI noted by one commenter, the "but for" te.t .hould be used (0 aslelS whether an activity II Interrelated with or interdependent to the propoled action. One commenter urged the Service to exclude Federal action. that have compleled con.u1lation from the environmental b8.lleline unless it can be shown that the actions are reasonably certain to occur. The Service declinel 10 adopt this luggeltion. In issuing ita biological opinJon on an action, the Service'. fmdilllj under aection 7(a)[Z] en(aila an BIle lament of the degree of impact that action will have on a listed .peclea. Once evaluated. that degree of impact i. factored into all future .ection 7 con.ultaUona conducted in the area. These impact. will continue to be conaidered all part of the environmental ba.eline unIel. the Service receives notice from tha Federal agency that the propa.ed.action will not be implemented or unIe.. the blologic.el opinion on the propoaed action Is no 10llljer valid becau.e reinltialion or con.uliation II required. In relpon.e to one comment. the Service notes that Federal actions that have proceeded through early consultation and that have received "no jeopardy" preliminary biological opinion. .hould ba fectored Into th, environmental buelJne. The.e seLJan" to be eligible for aarly coDlultaUon. had 10 be non.poculaUve, fea.ible action., and. bec.eu.e the prelimJnary blologicel opinion can laler be conflnned .. . final biological opinion. thl. lnJUal revlaw and conclu.ion by the Service mu.t ba con.ldered In other ..cUon 7 consultationa. Th. tenD "cumulative effecu" means tho.e effeell on the .pede. c.euoed by 1'4701.FMT...[18.30]...4-1~ ~', \ other projects and actlvitie. u.nrelated to the .ctlon under con.u1I1Uon thetthe Service will con.lder In formulatll1lj III bloloSlcal opInion on the .ub/ecI Ictlon. One commenler oppo..d the propo..d definition of cumulaUv. effaell by argullllj th.lthe Act dOli nol require .n analy.l. of cumulative .ffecllln . .ectlon 7 con.u1l1l1on. CltIl1lj ..cUon 7(c). tho commanler noted thai bIological ......menlllIlly be limited (0 an examination of effects of "Iuch acllon" on Ii.ted .pect... The commenter urged tha Service 10 .trike cumulatlve effeclllllaly.l. from thl. rule becau.a few Federalasancte. have th. capeblllty to ncognlze or ...... cumulative effecll of Stata or private acllon. contemponneou.ly with conducting .ection 7 coDlultatlon. Accordllllj to the commenler, the Sen1c8', 8' the expert on CUJT'ent .tatua of Ii.ted .pecie., .bould keep watch on the.e State Illd private actlvltle. thet come on line In a particular ectlon are.. The Service re.pondl that a Federal agency, wben evaluatll1lj the en\ironmentallmpaell of e propoaed action, mu.t comply with NEPA. Since thl. compliance Include. III ana1y.l. of cumulative effecll. the Service believe. that it I. the Federel agency'. reoponalbflJty to develop thl. InfonnaUon. The cumulative effecll analysis conducted in compliance with the broad definition under NEPA may be .ubmitted to the Service by the Federal agency when Inltiatll1lj fonnal consultation. The Service can ule thi. analy.i. and apply IlIlUlItOwer definition of cumulative effectl when analyzllllj whether a propo.ed ectlon. alolllj with cumuletlve affecta. vlolat.. .eelion 7(a}(Z} of!ha Act Other comment..... while not oppo'lng the applicability of cumulative effecta snaly.l. to ..ction 7 coDlultatloDl, believed that the propoaed IOOpo of "cumulaUve effecll" and "effecta of the Bction" were too nattQw. TheM commenten generally 'US8..ted that cumulative effecll .bauld lnclude the errect. of all re..onably fore.eeable future Federal. State, and private action.. They .lated !hI! thl. .copo would be more In line with that mandated under NEPA Illd argued that any le..ar review could detrimentally affect andallljered .pede.. The commenta.. .damantly oppoled any IlmitaUon on the fore.Jaht employed by tha Service or Federal agenct.. that thay believed would n.u1t from the propo.al'. CODllructlon of cumuletlve effacll. Section 7 con.ulta tlon wilIanaJ)'R whether the "offeell of the action" on lI.ted .pede., pluo any addltional. ---~,"