WSP00396

• File Number: 8065
• Description: Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 6/3/1986
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Fish and Wildlife Service-NOAA - Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act of 1973 - As Amended - Final Rule - Federal Register - Volume 51-Number 106 - Rules and Regulations
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

OJ2375

ll1l134 feder.1 ResI.le, / Vol. 51. No. 106 / Tue.day. June 3. 1986/ Kules and Regulallons

of th. specf.. h.. Improved to the polnl
.t which II m.y b. remov.d !rom the
u.1I of I!nd."8.red .nd 'Thre.t.n.d
Wildlife .nd PI.nls.
Th. princlp.1 conlroveny Involvl"8
Ih. "I.op.rdy" and "d..lrucllon or
advene modlncallon" definlllon. Will
that. under the proposed ruI.. 10 find
lhat an action tallkely to Jeopardize 8
listed lpeele. or re.ull in the del'ructian
or advene modification of critical
hdbitat. !.he Service mUll identify
delrimenlal impact. to "botb the
survival and recovery" of the lilted
.pecin. The conjunclion "and" wal
used In the 1978 rule's definJtlons of
these phralleJ. but the word "both" wal
.dded by the proposed rule to
emphsaize that. ex.::ept in exceptional
circumstance.. Injury to recovery alone
would not wafnmt the iaauance of a
"jeopardy" biological opinion The
Service adoptslhele definitions
subslanU.lly without cha"8e from the
proposed rule; thill doe. not repre.ent 8
change in policy, alone commenter
charged. becau.e the Service has
inlernally inlerpreted the "jeopardy"
standard 81 requiring detrimental
impacts to the continued axillence of II
species under a joinll!lurvival and
recovery concept. Other Federal
agencies are alllured that the lame
"jeopardy" standard under which their
fILoli( action. have been evaluated in the pa8t
_ will be continued under this final rule.
Several commentera urged the Service
to .trike the "and" and in.ert "or" in the
defmition. of "jeopardy" and
"de.truction or advel"le modification."
They argued that Injury to recovery for
an al....ady depleted .pecles would
re",uire the i..uance of a jeopardy
opinion. They .1.., remarked th.t the
" I Service'8 politi on disregarded the
~',o.... conservation requ.irementl of the Act,
0;' i \,.. failed to adequalely prot.ct critical
"" I . ~.\('t habital. operated 10 weaken or nullify
recovery effort.. and oth.rwI.. violated
the purposes .nd pollcl.s of the Act
The.e commenten ml.conltrued the
Service'. role in conducting
consultations under ..ction 7(.)(2) of the
Act. The purpose or consultation is to
idenUfy conflicts belween propo.ed
Peder.1 actions .nd the "Jeop.rdy"
standard of s.ctlon 7(.)(2). The
"confjnu~ exJltence" 01 the lpede. J.
the key to th.jeop.rdy stand.rd,
pl.cl"8 .n .mph..l. on Injury to .
species' "survivol," How.ver, slgntflcont
impalnnent of recovery efforu or other
.dve.... effectc which rise to tho level of
"jeop.rdldng" tho "contlnu.d
ex.J.tenee" oC a Uated apede. can allO
be the bOIls for 1..u1"8 . "J.opordy"
opinion. Th. Servlca .clmowlods.s th.L
in many caMS, the extreme threau

S-07_

00 I O(OO)(l I-IotA Y -16-1 ),204017)

r.c.d by soma IIsl.d specl.s will m.k.
th. dlfforenc. b.lw..n Injury to
".urvlvaIOl and to "recovery" virtually
Eero.

One commenter dJ'lgreed Ihal Ictlon.
.dv....ely .ffoctl"8 survival of. speclos
will .Iso always .dve....ly .ff.clll.
recovery. The commeRtsr did nol cite
examplu where an aeUon thai
!eop.rdl..d "survival" of a sp.e1e.
would not I.opardl.. ils "recovery." The
Service i. not aware of any example.
ond b.lleves that II would be v.ry
dJfficult to recover. .peciea whOle
survival h.d bo.n placed In jaopardy.
Th. very concapt of "J.opardy" Is th.t .
Perleral agency should not .uthorUe.
fund. or carry oul an action that would
Injure a IIsled speel..' chancas for
survival to the polnl th.t recov.ry Is 001
.1lainabl..1f .urvivall. j.opardlzed.
recovery Is .Iao leoperdizad. ALl not.d
above. thO"8h. th.s. conc.pts a....
generally considered togeth.r In
onalyzlng eff.ct., .nd It 10 difficult to
drew clear-cut dlltinctlons.

The concept of "survival" Is discussed
.bove, bul is not defined In the Act or In
these regulations. Two commentera Celt
thai "sorvival" should be defined In the
....guIalion.. and one urged the Service to
adopt the following specific definJtion:

"Survival" for a .pede. meanl relenUon of
a lu.fficlenl number of individual I and/or
populaUoRl with necelPl')' babilallo in.ure
lh.llh. .peele. will keep 110 Inlegrily In lhe
face of seneUc recombinaUon and known
environmental nuctuatlonl.

The Service agrees with the crit.ria
set out In the above definition, but
decUnes to .dopt a regulatory d.finJtion
ror "survival" becauee thl. ,oncapt
v.ries widely among lI.ted specf.s. Th.
Servica will .pply the statutory
standard of Jeopordy to the contlnu.d
exJ.tenC8 of a .pecle. on B caae-by-ca.e
b..I., tald"8 Into .ccounl the p.rticular
need. of end the severity and
lmm.dI.cy of thre.to posed to . nsted
.peel.s. Th. Service is not .tt.mptlng to
predetermln. the resullo of any future
consultations by .nnounclng th..o
interpretations of tho "jaopardy"
stand.rd, butlnot.ed 10 empb..Wns
what "j.opordy" Is and how It should b.
.ppll.d In the section 7(.)(2) proce...
On. comm.nt., urged Iba Sarvlca to
go furth.r and forbid any P.d.r.1 .ctlon
to proceed. "'fardl... of . "no
j.op.rdy" finding. II tho proposed .ollan
would .dv.roely .If.ct tho recov.ry of a
U.ted .peele.. Numerou. COmlDtlDten
cft.d s.ctlons 2(c)(I). S(l). and 7(a)[I) of
tho Act .. .uthority for tho ServIce to
ban F.doral .g.ncy .ctlons that ''vIol.l.
tho requlremont to conaorv. .nd.ngered
.pede.. Of

F 47ln.FMI'...(111.30]......16-86

"'

Th. commenl.n mlsintorpret the
st. tutory ch."8oS which the
Am.ndmento hu. m.de to Mctlon 7,
snd th.y ml.colUlru. court decfslons
whIch huo not.d tho .worent
"helghl.n.d" responslbWty of tho
8ocret.ry. Th. Servlc. will undertak.
program. for th. consorv.t1on of IIsl.d
speel.. ond will consul I with oth.r
Pod.ral .g.ncl.s .ttemptlng 10 do th.
..me. Th. 80rvlca will nOL nor doe. It
hove tho .uthority to, mandete how or
when other Pederal Isencle. are to
Impl.ment th.1r responsibWtI.s under
s.clion 7( .J(lJ. nor Is tha 80rvlce
.uthorized to I..u. . biological opinion
und.r section 7(a)(I) of tho Act. Section
7(a)(1) h.. . nmJt.d purpo.. und.r the
Act: 10 authorUe Pederal agencl.. to
factor endansered .pedel COD.MrYltion
Into their planning proces..s, regardJ...
of oth.r st. tutory directives.
In contrasL section 7(.)(2) contaJna
tho mandatory "j.opordy" standard. The
prohibitory f.ature. of oection 7. and tho
.xemptlon proce.. .dded by tho 1978
Amendm.nto. focus on tho provlalona of
section 7(a)(2). Although there 10 no
expre.. legisl.tiv. hi.tory d1recUySweighing and comparing the relative
SIre"8ths of section 7(a)(I) with 7(e)(2).
the.... can be no doubt that Congre..
considered the leopordy standard of
section 7(aJ(2) as being the substantlv.
comeratone of section 1:

The lerm "I. likely 10 JeopardIze"" uoed
becau.e the fundamental obU,aUon of
.actioo 7(_) or lh. .ctl. !het Pedora! qond..
InJure their acUoIU do Dot jeopardize the
cooUnued exi.lence of an eada.rtpred or
threatened .pede..

S. Rep. No. 151, 96th Cong.. l.t Se... 4
(1979) (emph..l. add.d). Congre..
Int.nded that the "jeopordy" .tandard
be tho ultimate berri.r past which
Federal actions may not proceed. .bsent
the I..uance of an .x.mptlon. The
commsntera" argument would reqa1re:""
Ped...1 .otlons to bait II th.y fslled to
cons.rve nsted speel.s, a result c1emy
notlnt.nded by Congres.. Congre..
Inlend.d that actions that do not violate
s.ction 7(a)(2J, or actions receIving an
.x.mptlon from tho requlremento of thot
subs.ctlon. be sIlowed to proceed.
Comm.nt... argued thot it would be .
vlol.tlon of section 7(aJ(I) for tho
Sarvica to i..ua a "no leopanly"
bIological opinion for a proposed
P.d.r.1 .ctlon th.t would bays an
.dve.... .lfect on th. reo,>>,",>, of. hated
species. ALl prevloualy .tated, tho
80rvlce l.cIes .uthority to ......
blologfcsl opinions WIder thot
subsection. and tho Act does not
mand.te psrticulu .ctlons to be taIcen
by Fed.ral qoncf.s to Impl.ment
7(.)(1). I'urlhennon. .<tv.....ffJoota IlOt