80 FR 26832 - Interagency Cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended; Incidental Take Statements
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 90 (May 11, 2015)
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 90 (May 11, 2015)
| Page Range | 26832-26845 | |
| FR Document | 2015-10612 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 26832-26845] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-10612] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 402 [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0080; NOAA-120106024-5048-02; FF09E-31000- 156-FXES-1122-0900000] RIN 1018-AX85; 0648-BB81 Interagency Cooperation--Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended; Incidental Take Statements AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, the Services), are amending the incidental take statement provisions of the implementing regulations for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The two primary purposes of the amendments are to address the use of surrogates to express the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take and to refine the basis for development of incidental take statements for programmatic actions. These changes are intended to improve the clarity and effectiveness of incidental take statements. The Services believe these regulatory changes are a reasonable exercise of their discretion in interpreting particularly challenging aspects of section 7 of the ESA related to incidental take statements. DATES: This final rule is effective on June 10, 2015. ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0080. Comments and materials we received on the proposed rule, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. The comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are also available by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters office, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, (703) 358-2171, (703) 358-1800 (facsimile); National Marine Fisheries Service, Headquarters office, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 427-8405, (301) 713-0376 (facsimile). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Aubrey, Chief, Division of Environmental Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240 (telephone: 703-358-2171); or Cathryn E. Tortorici, Chief, Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (telephone: 301-427-8400). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered with certain exceptions. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, the Services may prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as threatened. Under section 3 of the ESA, the term ``take'' means to ``harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' Section 7 of the ESA provides for the exemption of incidental take of listed fish or wildlife species caused by Federal agency actions that the Services have found to be consistent with the provisions of section 7(a)(2). The Services jointly administer the ESA via regulations set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This rule deals with regulations found in title 50 of the CFR at part 402. Under 50 CFR 402.14, Federal agencies must review their actions at the earliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect species listed under the ESA or their designated critical habitat. If such a determination is made, formal consultation with the appropriate Service is required, unless one of the exceptions outlined at Sec. 402.14(b) applies. Within 45 days after concluding formal consultation, the Service delivers a biological opinion to the Federal agency and any applicant. The biological opinion states the opinion of the Service as to whether or not the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. If a proposed action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of a listed species, the Services, under 50 CFR 402.14(i), issue along with the biological opinion an incidental take statement that specifies, among other requirements: The impact of such incidental taking on the listed species; measures considered necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of such take; terms and conditions (including reporting requirements) that implement the specified measures; and procedures to be used for handling or disposing of individuals that are taken. The current regulations at Sec. 402.14(i)(1)(i) require the Services to express the impact of such incidental taking of the species in terms of amount or extent. The preamble to the final rule that set forth the current regulations discusses the use of a precise number of individuals or a description of the land or marine area affected to express the amount or extent of anticipated take, respectively (51 FR 19954, June 3, 1986). Court decisions rendered over the last decade regarding the adequacy of incidental take statements have prompted the Services to clarify two aspects of the regulations addressing incidental take statements: (1) The use of surrogates to express the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take, including circumstances where project impacts to the surrogate are coextensive with at least one aspect of the project's scope; and (2) the circumstances under which providing an incidental take statement with a biological opinion on a programmatic action is appropriate. Through this final rule, the Services are establishing prospective standards regarding incidental take statements. Consistent with the regulatory language set forth in the proposed rule, we are clarifying that the Services formulate an incidental take statement if such take is reasonably certain to occur. Nothing in [[Page 26833]] these final regulations is intended to require reevaluation of any previously completed biological opinions or incidental take statements. Additionally, this final rule revises only those portions of the joint consultation regulations of 50 CFR part 402 set forth in the ``Regulation Promulgation'' section below. All other provisions remain unchanged. These revisions to the incidental take statement regulations addressing surrogates, programmatic actions, and the applicable standard for anticipating take are independent revisions that are fully severable from each other. Proposed Rule On September 4, 2013, the Services published a proposed rule addressing the incidental take statement provisions of the implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (78 FR 54437). The proposed rule addressed the use of surrogate take indicators and issuance of an incidental take statement for programmatic actions. The proposed rule requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 4, 2013. The Services also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. The Services received comments from 64 individuals and organizations. For surrogates, the proposed rule endorsed the use of surrogates to express the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take and set forth three requirements for their use in an incidental take statement. This final rule adopts the approach of the proposed rule for surrogates with no significant changes. For programmatic actions, the proposed rule addressed the subset of Federal actions that are designed to provide a framework for the development of future, site-specific actions that are authorized, funded, or carried out and subject to the requirements of section 7 at a later time. Development of incidental take statements for ``framework'' programmatic actions is problematic because they generally lack the site-specific details of where, when, and how listed species will be affected by the program. The Services rely on such information to inform the amount or extent of take in the incidental take statement that serves as a trigger for reinitiation of consultation pursuant to the requirements of 50 CFR 402.16(a). The Services proposed to distinguish programmatic actions and programmatic incidental take statements for framework actions in the regulations to clarify the basis for development of an incidental take statement for this type of Federal program. The proposed rule stated that the key distinguishing characteristics of programmatic actions for purposes of the rule are: (1) They provide the framework for future, site-specific actions that are subject to section 7 consultations and incidental take statements, but they do not authorize, fund, or carry out those future site-specific actions; and (2) they do not include sufficient site-specific information to inform an assessment of where, when, and how listed species are likely to be affected by the program. In lieu of quantifying a traditional amount or extent of take, the Services proposed to develop programmatic incidental take statements that anticipate an unquantifiable amount or extent of take at the programmatic scale in recognition that subsequent site-specific actions authorized, funded, or carried out under the programmatic action will be subject to subsequent section 7 consultation and incidental take statements, as appropriate. The Services proposed to express reinitiation triggers as reasonable and prudent measures that adopt either specific provisions of the proposed programmatic action, such as spatial or timing restrictions, to limit the impacts of the program on listed species or similar restrictions identified by the Services that would function to minimize the impacts of anticipated take on listed species at the program level. After further consideration of relevant court rulings, the Services' national section 7 policy, and public comments, the Services are revising the approach described in the proposed rule to address incidental take statements for programmatic actions. The revised approach relies more appropriately on the distinction that a framework programmatic action only establishes a framework for the development of specific future action(s) but does not authorize any future action(s). Under those particular circumstances, the programmatic action in and of itself does not result in incidental take of listed species. Under this final rule, the Services are defining the term framework programmatic action in the regulations and recognizing the Services' authority not to provide an incidental take statement with a biological opinion addressing the proposed adoption of a program establishing a framework for the development of future actions. As discussed in more detail below, the Services believe this approach is fully consistent with the statutory purposes of an incidental take statement and the language of section 7 of the ESA. It also advances the policy goals of the Services to focus the provision of incidental take statements at the action level at which such take will result. The approach taken in the proposed rule was predicated on the assumption that a framework programmatic action could cause take. Given the particular nature of framework programmatic actions discussed above, the Services have altered their view and now affirm that a framework programmatic action in and of itself does not result in incidental take of listed species. This altered view as to incidental take for framework programmatic actions, however, does not undermine the duty to consult under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Framework programmatic actions will trigger formal consultation if the action may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat. Additionally, the Services also reconsidered the approach taken in the proposed rule because an incidental take statement for a framework programmatic action may not be practical to implement. In particular, the Services are concerned that it may be difficult to identify measures at a program scale that are specific enough to serve as valid take-related reinitiation triggers in an incidental take statement given that such measures are often described in the proposed program in a qualitative rather than a quantitative manner. Additionally, the Services are concerned that program-based measures may not serve as consistently effective reinitiation triggers because reinitiation would occur only when the action agency deviated from the terms of its own program. The additional burden of monitoring and reporting requirements for such measures in many instances would outweigh the limited functionality such measures would provide in terms of minimizing the impacts of anticipated take. The limited functionality of this approach is also raised by the fact that a similar reinitiation trigger for changes to the proposed action is already set forth in the existing regulations at 50 CFR 402.16(c) where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law. The proposed rule set forth a definition of programmatic incidental take statement that, among other things, indicated the Services would issue an incidental take statement where take was ``reasonably certain to occur.'' While the Services are not including this definition in the final rule, we are [[Page 26834]] clarifying that the ``reasonable certainty'' of take is the applicable standard for when the Services formulate an incidental take statement. Use of Surrogates The Services acknowledge congressional preference for expressing the impacts of take in incidental take statements in terms of a numerical limitation with respect to individuals of the listed species. However, Congress also recognized that a numerical value would not always be available and intended that such numbers be established only where possible. H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 27 (1982). The preamble to the final rule that set forth the current regulations also acknowledges that exact numerical limits on the amount of anticipated incidental take may be difficult to determine and the Services may instead specify the level of anticipated take in terms of the extent of the land or marine area that may be affected (51 FR 19926 [19953-19954]; June 3, 1986). In fact, as the Services explained in the preamble to that rule, the use of descriptions of extent of take can be more appropriate than the use of numerical amounts ``because for some species loss of habitat resulting in death or injury to individuals may be more deleterious than the direct loss of a certain number of individuals'' (51 FR at 19954). Over the last 25 years of developing incidental take statements, the Services have found that, in many cases, the biology of the listed species or the nature of the proposed action makes it impractical to detect or monitor take of individuals of the listed species. In those situations, evaluating impacts to a surrogate such as habitat, ecological conditions, or similar affected species may be the most reasonable and meaningful measure of assessing take of listed species. The courts also have recognized that it is not always practicable to establish the precise number of individuals of the listed species that will be taken and that ``surrogate'' measures are acceptable to establish the impact of take on the species if there is a link between the surrogate and take. See Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2001). It is often more practical and meaningful to monitor project effects upon surrogates, which can also provide a clear standard for determining when the amount or extent of anticipated take has been exceeded and consultation should be reinitiated. Accordingly, the Services adopted the use of surrogates as part of our national policy for preparing incidental take statements: Take can be expressed also as a change in habitat characteristics affecting the species (e.g., for an aquatic species, changes in water temperature or chemistry, flows, or sediment loads) where data or information exists which links such changes to the take of the listed species. In some situations, the species itself or the effect on the species may be difficult to detect. However, some detectable measure of effect should be provided. . . . [I]f a sufficient causal link is demonstrated (i.e., the number of burrows affected or a quantitative loss of cover, food, water quality, or symbionts), then this can establish a measure of the impact on the species or its habitat and provide the yardstick for reinitiation. (Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, March 1998, at 4-47- 48 ([Services' Section 7 Handbook]) For example, under a hypothetical Clean Water Act permit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would authorize the fill of a quarter-acre of wetlands composed of three vernal pools occupied by the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) to construct a road- crossing. The wetland fill is likely to kill all of the shrimp occupying the three vernal pools. A single pool may contain thousands of individual shrimp as well as their eggs or cysts. For that reason, it is not practical to express the amount or extent of anticipated take of this species or monitor take-related impacts in terms of individual shrimp. Quantifying the habitat area encompassing the three vernal pools supporting this species as a surrogate for incidental take would be a practical and meaningful alternative to quantifying and monitoring the anticipated incidental take in terms of individual shrimp caused by the proposed Federal permit action. It is a practical alternative because effects to vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat are causally related to take of the fairy shrimp, these effects can be readily monitored, and the extent of impacts to occupied habitat provides a clear standard for when the anticipated extent of take has been exceeded. The Ninth Circuit Court's holding in Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007) could be read to suggest that such surrogates cannot be coextensive with the project's scope for fear that reinitiation of consultation would not be triggered until the project is complete. However, even under circumstances of a coextensive surrogate (such as in the above example), the action agency or applicant will be required under the incidental take statement to monitor project impacts to the surrogate during the course of the action (e.g., required monitoring to confirm the action does not exceed fill of three vernal pools in the quarter-acre wetland), which will determine whether these impacts are consistent with the analysis in the biological opinion. This assessment will ensure that reinitiation of formal consultation will be triggered if the extent of the anticipated taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded during the course of the action where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16. In the above example, reinitiation of formal consultation would be triggered in the event a fourth vernal pool was discovered during wetland fill or it was determined that the total amount of vernal pool habitat modified by the project exceeded the identified one-quarter of an acre of wetland habitat. Thus, although fully coextensive with the anticipated impacts of the project on the vernal pool fairy shrimp, the surrogate nevertheless provides for a meaningful reinitiation trigger consistent with the purposes of an incidental take statement. In addition to discussing the use of habitat surrogates for expressing the extent of anticipated take, the Services' Section 7 Handbook also discusses (on page 4-47) the use of impacts to non-listed species as a surrogate for expressing the amount of anticipated take of a listed species: In some situations, the species itself or the effect on the species may be difficult to detect. However, some detectable measure of effect should be provided. For instance, the relative occurrence of the species in the local community may be sufficiently predictable that impacts on the community (usually surrogate species in the community) serve as a measure of take, e.g., impacts to listed mussels may be measured by an index or other censusing technique that is based on surveys of non-listed mussels. In this case, the discussion determining the level at which incidental take will be exceeded (reinitiation level) describes factors for the non- listed mussels indicating impact on the listed species, such as an amount or extent of decrease in numbers or recruitment, or in community dynamics. We are amending Sec. 402.14(i)(1)(i) of the regulations to clarify that surrogates may be used to express the amount or extent of anticipated take, provided the biological opinion or the incidental take statement: (1) Describes the causal link between the surrogate and take of the listed species; (2) describes why it is not practical to express the amount of anticipated take or to monitor take-related impacts in terms of individuals of the listed species; and (3) sets a clear standard for determining when the amount or extent of the taking has been exceeded. Such flexibility may be [[Page 26835]] especially useful in cases where the biology of the listed species or the nature of the proposed action makes it impractical to detect or monitor take-related impacts to individual animals. This use of surrogates to express the amount or extent of incidental take is consistent with Federal court decisions addressing the issue of surrogates as reinitiation triggers in incidental take statements. Provision of an Incidental Take Statement With a Biological Opinion for Programmatic Actions The section 7 regulatory definition of Federal ``action'' includes Federal agency programs. See 50 CFR 402.02. Such programs may include a collection of activities of a similar nature, a group of different actions proposed within a specified geographic area, or an action adopting a framework for the development of future actions. Those future actions may be developed at the local, statewide, or national scale, and are authorized, funded, or carried out and subject to section 7 consultation requirements at a later time as appropriate. Examples of Federal programs that provide such a framework include land management plans prepared by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit Program. As discussed above, the Services are modifying the section 7 regulations to address incidental take statements for framework programmatic actions in a way that revises the approach described in the proposed rule. The revised approach reflects our further consideration of relevant court rulings, the Services' national section 7 policy, and public comments on the proposed rule. Under this final rule, we are establishing regulatory provisions specific to framework programmatic actions that require section 7 consultation and adopt a framework for the development of future actions but do not authorize those future actions. This rule change will clarify the circumstances under which the Services will not provide an incidental take statement with a biological opinion addressing a framework programmatic action because adoption of a framework will not itself result in the take of listed species. Any take resulting from subsequent actions that proceed under the framework programmatic action will be subject to section 7 consultation and an incidental take statement, as appropriate. However, this regulatory change does not imply that section 7 consultation is required for a framework programmatic action that has no effect on listed species or critical habitat. The Services believe that this approach is fully consistent with the statutory purposes of an incidental take statement and the language of section 7 of the ESA. As an initial and elementary matter, section 7 of the ESA directs the provision of an incidental take statement only where take is anticipated to result from the proposed Federal agency action. If take is not anticipated, then logically no incidental take statement would be provided. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4). Because a framework programmatic action does not itself authorize any action to proceed, no take is anticipated to result, and, therefore, the statute does not require the provision of an incidental take statement. To read the statute otherwise to require the provision of incidental take statements for framework programmatic actions would not meaningfully further the statutory purposes of incidental take statements. The primary purpose of an incidental take statement is, when consistent with protection of the species, to exempt the incidental take of listed species that is anticipated to result from the agency action and impose conditions on that exemption intended to minimize the impacts of such take for the species' benefit. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4); H.R. Rep. 97-567, at 26-27 (1982). As provided in the legislative history and reflected in the Services' regulations, an additional purpose is to identify reinitiation triggers that provide clear signals that the level of anticipated take has been exceeded and would, therefore, require reexamination through a reinitiated consultation (H.R. Rep. 97-567, at 26-27 (1982); 50 CFR 402.14(i)). Due to the nature of the action, no take results when a framework programmatic action is adopted. Adoption of the program itself, by definition, only establishes a framework for later action. ESA consultations will occur when subsequent actions may affect listed species and are consistent with the terms of the authorized program. If incidental take is reasonably certain to occur and the proposed action is compliant with the requirements of section 7(a)(2), then an action- specific incidental take statement will be provided that ensures any incidental take from the subsequent action under the program is addressed. The primary purpose of an incidental take statement (exemption of take and minimization of take-related impacts for the benefit of the listed species) would also not be advanced, because any incidental take statement provided at the program level and the resulting exemption would necessarily be incomplete since a second consultation and an action-specific incidental take statement still need to be provided when later actions are authorized under the program. Additionally, the level of detail available at the program (framework) level is often insufficient to identify with particularity where, when, and how the program will affect listed species. Without such detail, it is difficult to write sufficiently specific and meaningful terms and conditions intended to minimize the impact of the taking for the benefit of the listed species. Given this lack of specificity and information, providing the amount (e.g., the number of individuals of the species taken) or extent (e.g., the number of acres of the species' habitat disturbed) of take in many instances would be speculative and unlikely to provide an accurate and reliable trigger for reinitiation of consultation, thus undermining the additional purpose of an incidental take statement. As discussed above, the modified approach for addressing incidental take statements for framework programmatic actions advances the policy goals of the Services to focus the provision of incidental take statements at the action level where such take will result. Consistent with that focus, if a decision adopting a framework also includes decisions authorizing actions (that is, actions for which no additional authorization will be necessary), then an incidental take statement would be necessary for those actions, provided the action is compliant with section 7(a)(2) and take is reasonably certain to occur. The Services have included recognition of this circumstance in the regulatory definition of the term ``mixed programmatic action'' in this final rule. For other types of programmatic actions not falling within the definitions provided in the rule, incidental take statements will be formulated by the Services to accompany biological opinions where incidental take is reasonably certain to occur and the proposed Federal action is compliant with the requirements of section 7(a)(2). If, as discussed above, an incidental take statement is not provided with a biological opinion on a framework programmatic action on the basis that no take will result at the program stage, questions arise about how the associated biological opinion can nevertheless address indirect effects of the program's implementation. Put another way, if indirect effects amount to killing, harming, harassing, etc., how can no take occur? The explanation turns on the differing purposes of a biological [[Page 26836]] opinion as compared with an incidental take statement. Unlike the purposes of an incidental take statement, the analysis in a biological opinion is used to determine whether an agency action is likely to jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 CFR 402.14(h); H.R. Rep. 97-567, at 10 (1982). Conducting an effects analysis on a framework programmatic action that examines the potential effects of implementing the program is fully consistent with the purposes of a biological opinion. The analysis in a biological opinion allows for a broad-scale examination of a program's potential impacts on a listed species and its designated critical habitat--an examination that is not as readily conducted when the later, action-specific consultation occurs on a subsequent action developed under the program framework. The provisions of an incidental take statement, including the amount and extent of take and the terms and conditions, necessarily must be specific to ensure they can be followed and allow for a determination of when they have been exceeded. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4); 50 CFR 402.14(i). In contrast, a meaningful effects analysis within a biological opinion may appropriately rely upon qualitative analysis to determine whether a program and its set of measures intended to minimize impacts or conserve listed species are adequately protective for purposes of making a jeopardy determination. Programmatic biological opinions examine how the parameters of the program align with the survival and recovery of listed species. This approach reflects the different statutory purposes that the two related but separate documents were intended to address. Distinctions between ``effects'' and ``take'' at the programmatic scale support analyzing potential program implementation as part of the ``effects'' of the framework programmatic action but not providing an incidental take statement at the program level. The ESA itself uses different terms in specifying the contents of a biological opinion for jeopardy purposes (``detail[] how the agency action affects the species'') and an incidental take statement (focused on ``take''). See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A), (b)(4). The ESA also does not define ``affects'' in any way. For purposes of a biological opinion on a framework programmatic action, the Services typically evaluate the potential implementation of the program as ``effects of the action.'' The Services can legitimately draw a distinction between ``effects'' of the program and the purpose of a biological opinion on that program and ``take'' and the purpose of an incidental take statement in the subsequent consultation on later actions carried out under the program. Given that no actions that would lead to take are authorized when the framework program itself is adopted, the Services' position is that take is not anticipated from the adoption of the program in and of itself. As a result, the Services find that it is appropriate not to provide an incidental take statement at the program level and to address take during subsequent steps when specific actions are authorized under the program and subsequent consultation occurs. As mentioned above, if, however, a decision adopting a program framework also includes decisions authorizing actions that will not be subject to further Federal authorization or section 7 consultation and take is reasonably certain to occur, then an incidental take statement would be necessary for those portions of the programmatic action that will result in incidental take. The Services have included recognition of this circumstance in the regulatory definition of the term ``mixed programmatic action'' in this final rule. Action agencies often seek to engage in consultation on programmatic actions to gain efficiencies in the section 7 consultation process. The Services anticipate this rule will afford action agencies and the Services with substantial flexibility to efficiently and effectively conduct consultation, while ensuring compliance with responsibilities under the ESA. For example, if an action agency designs a programmatic action and provides adequate information to inform the development of a biological opinion with an incidental take statement covering future actions implemented under the program, the Services anticipate they will be able to provide such an opinion and incidental take statement to the action agency under this rule. Action agencies may request assistance from the Services to help determine how a program could best be addressed pursuant to this rule. The Services also encourage action agencies to consider how any section 7 consultation on a programmatic action is consistent with the action agency's other environmental review processes. Standard for Issuance of an Incidental Take Statement In this final rule, the Services are clarifying that the standard for issuance of an incidental take statement is ``reasonable certainty'' that take will occur. The Services are amending 50 CFR 402.14(g)(7) to implement this clarification. The Services do not consider this change to be substantive, but rather a clarification of the existing standard for issuance of an incidental take statement. Expressly including the standard of reasonable certainty in this final rule at 50 CFR 402.14(g)(7) is consistent with the ESA, existing section 7 regulations, the Services' current practice, the Services' Section 7 Handbook, and applicable case law. The three requirements that must be met under section 7 of the ESA before an incidental take statement is issued implicitly suggest that a finding of take is required. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)(B) (``the taking of an endangered species or a threatened species incidental to the agency action will not violate such subsection'') (emphasis added). The statute does not set forth the standard by which incidental take is to be determined, however, leaving room for the Services to offer their interpretation. As for the regulations, the section 7 regulations expressly apply the ``reasonable certainty'' standard to ``indirect effects'' that are defined as part of the ``effects of the action.'' See 50 CFR 402.02. The existing provision governing the contents of an incidental take statement at 50 CFR 402.16(i)(1) reflects the requirement that at least some level of incidental take be anticipated to meaningfully include the required contents of an incidental take statement, e.g., the impact of the take (amount or extent of take), and the reasonable and prudent measures considered ``necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact.'' The Services' Section 7 Handbook, issued in 1998, identifies a similar standard of ``reasonably likely'' to determine when to issue an incidental take statement. The Handbook predates the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2001). In that case, the Ninth Circuit provided a lengthy discussion of when the Services must issue an incidental take statement. Examining the statute and the regulations, the court held that there must be a reasonable basis to conclude that incidental take will occur in order to issue an incidental take statement. Although not definitively resolving the issue, the court cited favorably to the lower court's application of the standard of ``reasonable certainty'' for issuance of an incidental take statement. The court particularly expressed concern about the imposition of conditions on otherwise lawful land use absent [[Page 26837]] reasonable certainty of incidental take. In 2002, following the Arizona Cattle Growers' decision, the Fish and Wildlife Service expressly recognized ``reasonable certainty'' as the standard that applies to determine if incidental take will occur. The language currently in 50 CFR 402.14(g)(7) is not inconsistent with the Services' application of the ``reasonable certainty'' standard. This provision requires the Services to ``formulate a statement concerning incidental take, if such taking may occur'' (50 CFR 402.14(g)(7) (emphasis added)). While some courts have read this language to potentially suggest a lower standard applies for the issuance of an incidental take statement, see, e.g., Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Beaudreu,--F.Supp.2d --,2014 WL 985394 (D.D.C. 2014), that is not the Services' interpretation. The language of Sec. 402.14(g)(7) cannot be read in isolation. The Services implement Sec. 402.14(g)(7) together with the more particular requirements of Sec. 402.14(i). For all the reasons discussed above, the ``reasonable certainty'' standard governs the threshold issue of whether to formulate an incidental take statement. Once the Services determine that incidental take is reasonably certain to occur, then the specific provisions of 50 CFR 402.14(i) govern (e.g., amount or extent of take, terms and conditions) and are applied consistent with the best scientific and commercial data available. Where formal consultation results in a determination that take is not ``reasonably certain,'' then consistent with Sec. 402.14(g)(7) and the Services' Section 7 Handbook, the Services provide a section entitled ``incidental take statement'' along with a short paragraph explaining that incidental take is not anticipated. Thus, the statement does not go on to provide an amount or extent of take, reasonable and prudent measures, or the other components of an incidental take statement. To avoid any confusion about the standard for anticipating incidental take of listed species, the Services have modified the text of Sec. 402.14(g)(7) to reflect the ``reasonably certain to occur'' standard. As a practical matter, application of the ``reasonable certainty'' standard is done in the following sequential manner in light of the best available scientific and commercial data to determine if incidental take is anticipated: (1) A determination is made regarding whether a listed species is present within the area affected by the proposed Federal action; (2) if so, then a determination is made regarding whether the listed species would be exposed to stressors caused by the proposed action (e.g., noise, light, ground disturbance); and (3) if so, a determination is made regarding whether the listed species' biological response to that exposure corresponds to the statutory and regulatory definitions of take (i.e., kill, wound, capture, harm, etc.). Applied in this way, the ``reasonable certainty'' standard does not require a guarantee that a take will result, rather, only that the Services establish a rational basis for a finding of take. While relying on the best available scientific and commercial data, the Services will necessarily apply their professional judgment in reaching these determinations and resolving uncertainties or information gaps. Application of the Services' judgment in this manner is consistent with the ``reasonable certainty'' standard. The standard is not a high bar and may be readily satisfied as described above. See, e.g., Arizona Cattle Growers', 273 F.3d at 1244 (noting that the standard the court applies in reviewing whether the Services may issue an incidental take statement is a ``very low bar to meet''). Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule In response to public comments and internal review, the Services made the following changes compared to the proposed rule: The term and definition for programmatic action and the proposed text of Sec. Sec. 402.02 and 402.14(i)(6) are modified in this final rule. The term programmatic action is changed to framework programmatic action. The term mixed programmatic action and its definition are also added to the final rule. The proposed term and definition for programmatic incidental take statement at Sec. 402.02 are removed; however, the standard set forth in the definition (reasonable certainty) is included in the final rule as explained below. These changes define, for purposes of incidental take statements under section 7 of the ESA, the subset of Federal agency actions to which this rule applies. The new definitions draw distinctions between these types of programmatic actions based on the extent to which those programs do or do not require subsequent Federal approvals and section 7 consultation for the terms of the program to be carried out. The new Sec. 402.14(i)(6) added to the regulations under this final rule establishes when an incidental take statement is and is not required for these two categories of programmatic action. The approach relied upon in this final rule for programmatic actions is fully consistent with the identified purpose of the proposed rule, which, among other things, was to clarify development of incidental take statements for programmatic actions. While this approach modifies the approach of the proposed rule for programmatic actions, the public was specifically asked for comment on whether the approach relied upon in this final rule would be more appropriate to address the issue of incidental take statements for programmatic actions. See 78 FR 54437, 54441 (Sept. 4, 2013). As discussed above, the Services are modifying the text in Sec. 402.14(g)(7) to clarify that ``reasonable certainty'' is the standard that applies to determine when the Services issue an incidental take statement. The proposed rule did not propose this specific change, but the proposed rule definition of programmatic incidental take statement included the concept of ``reasonable certainty'' as the applicable standard for incidental take, and commenters specifically requested the Services to clarify the applicable standard, including many commenters that specifically asserted that ``reasonable certainty'' is the applicable standard. The Services, therefore, are taking this opportunity to clarify the regulatory language in Sec. 402.14(g)(7) from ``if such take may occur'' to ``if such take is reasonably certain to occur'' (emphasis added). As explained above, the Services do not consider this change to be substantive, but rather a clarification of the existing standard for issuance of an incidental take statement. The proposed rule included adding a sentence to Sec. 402.14(i)(3) intended to clarify that monitoring project impacts to a surrogate meets the requirement for monitoring the impacts of incidental take on the listed species. Upon further consideration, the Services concluded this sentence is unnecessary as the requirement is already reflected in the existing regulatory language. See 50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)-(3) (monitoring and reporting ``impacts on the species'' includes amount or extent of take and therefore surrogates). The Services are making a technical change to Sec. 402.14(i)(3) to update the citations to the NMFS regulations at the end of that provision from ``50 CFR 220.45 and 228.5'' to ``50 CFR 216.105 and 222.301(h)''. These provisions were moved within the Code of Federal Regulations but never updated in Sec. 402.14(i)(3). Response to Public Comments As noted above, the Services received a total of 64 public comments in response to the proposed rule. For the [[Page 26838]] reasons discussed above, the Services withdrew the proposed regulatory definition of programmatic incidental take statement in this final rule. On that basis, we are not responding to public comments on this aspect of the proposed rule except as they relate to the standards for development of an incidental take statement. We also are not responding to public comments beyond the scope of the proposed rule, including those comments that addressed other portions of the section 7 consultation regulations not related to the formulation of incidental take statements. The following responses to public comments are segregated under four categories: (1) General; (2) the standards for anticipating take; (3) incidental take statements for programmatic actions; and (4) the use of surrogates to express the amount or extent of take. General Issue 1: Several commenters requested an extension of the public comment period. Response: The Services believe the 60-day public comment period provided adequate opportunity for the public to review and comment on the proposed regulations. Issue 2: One commenter stated that the proposed changes to the section 7 regulations are not within the Services' regulatory authority. Response: The Services regard the proposed changes as fully consistent with their discretionary authority to address ambiguous aspects and challenging issues that arise under section 7 of the ESA. Congress included the incidental take statement provisions in the 1982 amendments to the ESA to resolve the situation in which a Federal action agency or an applicant has been advised by the Services that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species but is anticipated to result in the taking of listed species incidental to that action, which would otherwise violate the take prohibition of section 9. See H.R. Rep. 97-567, 26-27 (1982). According to the legislative history of the ESA, by requiring the Services to specify the impact of take on the listed species, Congress also intended reinitiation triggers (amount or extent of take) to be required as part of the incidental take statement. See id. The ESA is sufficiently ambiguous to allow the Services to adopt a statutory interpretation that supports not providing an incidental take statement for a framework programmatic action, as appropriate. See Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 865-66 (1984). First, the definition of ``take'' itself contemplates immediate actions that would potentially injure a listed species (``harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The programmatic (framework) action by itself and by definition under this rule does not authorize any actions that would result in these sorts of immediate injuries to a listed species. No take will occur at the programmatic level, and any take that results will result only from a second (or subsequent) authorization under the programmatic action. As discussed above, framework programmatic actions may include authorization for actions that will not be subject to further Federal authorization or section 7 consultation and are reasonably certain to cause take. Under those circumstances, an incidental take statement would be necessary for that portion of the framework programmatic action. The Services have included recognition of this circumstance in the regulatory definition of mixed programmatic action in this final rule. Given the step-wise nature of such programmatic actions, sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the ESA can be read to support not providing an incidental take statement at the programmatic level under these circumstances. If incidental take is anticipated to result at this stage, section 7(b)(4) appears to require the Services to issue an incidental take statement (``the Secretary shall provide the Federal agency and applicant . . . with a written statement'') (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4) (emphasis added). Although section 7(b)(4) does not expressly require a finding that incidental take is anticipated to result from the agency action, the three requirements that must be met before an incidental take statement is issued implicitly suggest this. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)(B) (``the taking of an endangered species or a threatened species incidental to the agency action will not violate such subsection'') (emphasis added). These provisions provide room for the Services to adopt the position that take will not result at the programmatic (framework) level in and of itself since no specific action is authorized when the program is adopted. Any take that will result from the program will be addressed, as appropriate, when a subsequent specific action(s) is authorized and the resulting action- specific consultation occurs. Because of the framework nature of the programmatic actions at issue, the Services are not avoiding the duty to provide an incidental take statement--any take resulting from the subsequent actions under program will be addressed in the later action- specific consultation. Not providing a take-related reinitiation trigger under an incidental take statement for the framework programmatic action is supportable given the Services' position that take is not anticipated at the program (framework) level in the particular circumstance where no specific action is authorized until a subsequent action developed under the framework is taken and subsequent ESA consultation occurs. Also, for decisions adopting framework programmatic actions that also authorize actions to proceed without any further Federal authorization or section 7 consultation anticipated, an incidental take statement is required under this rule where the action is determined to be compliant with section 7(a)(2) and take is reasonably certain to occur. An example of such actions might include Federal programs in which subsequent approval for actions proceeding under the program are delegated to States. As defined in this rule and discussed above, a mixed programmatic action may include authorization for actions that will not be subject to further Federal authorization or section 7 consultation and are reasonably certain to cause take. Under those circumstances, an incidental take statement would be necessary for that portion of the programmatic action. The Services have included recognition of this circumstance in the regulatory definition of mixed programmatic action in this final rule. Examples of mixed programmatic action would include land management plans in which particular actions, such as establishment of campgrounds or off-road vehicle use, are approved to proceed directly, while the plan itself provides a framework for the development of future actions occurring in the action area that are authorized, funded, or carried out at a later time and subject to section 7 consultation requirements, as appropriate. Section 7(o)(2) of the ESA supports the Services' interpretation because it appears to contemplate only a single incidental take statement to fully exempt take. The language of section 7(o)(2) provides ``any taking that is in compliance with the terms and conditions [of an incidental take statement] . . . shall not be considered to be a prohibited taking.'' (16 U.S.C. 1536(o)(2)). If the Services were to provide an incidental take statement for a framework programmatic action where any take will result only from future [[Page 26839]] authorizations under the programmatic (framework) action, the Services would still require a second incidental take statement for those subsequent actions because that is the point at which adequate information typically would be available to identify amount or extent of take and to provide action-specific terms and conditions. Requiring an incidental take statement for the framework programmatic action to fully exempt the take associated with implementing the program or framework, however, may be inconsistent with section 7(o)(2), which exempts ``any taking'' that complies with the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement (emphasis added). Thus, not providing an incidental take statement at the program (framework) level avoids a potential inconsistency with the language of section 7(o)(2). Additionally, as discussed above, the language of the ESA leaves sufficient room to draw a distinction between ``effects'' and ``take'' at the programmatic scale, and thus to allow for an analysis of program implementation as part of the ``effects'' of a framework programmatic action but not to provide an incidental take statement at the program (framework) level. The ESA itself uses different terms in specifying the contents of a biological opinion for jeopardy purposes (``detail how the agency action affects the species'') and an incidental take statement (focused on ``take''). See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A), (b)(4) (emphasis added). The ESA also does not define ``affects'' in any way. Thus, it is up to the Services to fill in these statutory gaps in the ESA in a reasonable way. See National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). Likewise, the use of surrogates in an incidental take statement is an exercise of the Services' reasonable discretion in carrying out their responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA. The statutory language associated with reinitiation triggers is quite general, providing that as part of an incidental take statement the Services shall ``specif[y] the impact of such incidental taking on the species'' (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)(i)). This language leaves substantial room for statutory interpretation on the part of the Services, including the use of surrogates. The legislative history of the 1982 amendments to the ESA, which added the incidental take statement provisions, reflects congressional support for the use of surrogates as well. Congress recognized that a numerical value would not always be available and intended that such numbers be established only where possible (H.R. Rep. No. 97-567, at 27). In practice, over the last 25 years of developing incidental take statements, the Services have found that in many cases the biology of the listed species or the nature of the proposed action makes it impractical to detect or monitor take of individuals. In those situations, evaluating impacts to a surrogate such as habitat, ecological conditions, or similar affected species may be the most reasonable and meaningful measure of assessing take of listed species and is fully consistent with the language and purposes of the ESA. The courts have also recognized that it is not always practicable to establish the precise number of individuals that will be taken. Thus under a Chevron analysis, the ESA permits the Services to rely upon surrogate measures to establish the impact of take on the species if there is a link between the surrogate and take. See Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Oregon Natural Resource Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). It is often more practical and meaningful to monitor project effects upon surrogates, which can also provide a clear standard for determining when the amount or extent of anticipated take has been exceeded and consultation should be reinitiated. Accordingly, the Services have already exercised their discretionary authority to adopt the use of surrogates as part of our joint national policy for preparing incidental take statements in the Section 7 Handbook (Services 1998). Issue 3: Commenters noted that the proposed rule is subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including the requirements applicable to environmental impact statements, that must be satisfied before a final decision is made on the proposed regulatory changes. Response: The categorical exclusions at 43 CFR 46.210(i) and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, section 6.03c.3(i) apply to this joint rule. Among other things, the exclusions apply to regulations that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process either collectively or case by case. 43 CFR 46.210. The Services have determined that this final rule will not result in any reasonably foreseeable effects to the environment and, therefore, that further NEPA review is not required. First, the rule codifies existing practices and case law with respect to use of surrogates and this codification of the status quo does not result in foreseeable environmental effects. Second, the timing of issuance of the incidental take statement will not change the substantive protections afforded to species and therefore the Service's regulations do not change the on-the-ground effects of incidental take statements. Finally, the update to the regulations does not result in environmental impacts because it merely clarifies the Services' longstanding position since the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n. that an incidental take statement may be issued only when there is ``reasonable certainty'' that take of listed species will occur. To the extent the rule would result in reasonably foreseeable environmental effects, the Services have determined that the rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review and that no extraordinary circumstances are present. The rule qualifies for two categorical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.210(i) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, section 6.03c.3(i). Among other things, the exclusions apply to regulations that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case by case. 43 CFR 46.210. See also NAO section 216-6 6.03c.3(i) (substantively the same exclusion). First, the rule is of a legal, technical, or procedural nature. For surrogates, the rule clarifies when the Services may use a surrogate to establish the amount or extent of take. This clarification is consistent with the Services' existing national policy and applicable case law. For programmatic actions, the rule clarifies the procedural timing of when the Services will issue an incidental take statement. It does not alter substantive protections. Finally, the rule codifies the Services' longstanding interpretation of their existing regulations post Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n. that an incidental take statement can be issued only if there is ``reasonable certainty'' that take will occur. Second, any potential impacts of this rule are too broad, speculative, and conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will be examined as part of any NEPA analysis conducted by the Federal action agency. [[Page 26840]] As explained above, the changes in the rule generally constitute clarifications that are consistent with existing practices as well as case law. As such, it would be speculative to try to analyze the effects of the codification of these practices. Furthermore, these changes apply to the nationwide implementation of section 7 consultations, which take place in a wide variety of contexts, for various activities, for and with numerous action agencies. This application allows analysis only at the broadest level and would not permit meaningful analysis. Furthermore, before any action is taken, the responsible action agency will be required to conduct any necessary NEPA analyses, including impacts to listed species and critical habitat. For these reasons, the second categorical exclusion applies to this rule. Additionally, none of the extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 CFR 46.215 and NAO 216-6 section 5.05c are triggered by the final rule. This rule does not involve a geographic area with unique characteristics, is not the subject of public controversy based on potential environmental consequences, will not result in uncertain environmental impacts or unique or unknown risks, does not establish a precedent or decision in principle about future proposals, will not have significant cumulative impacts, and will not have any adverse effects upon endangered or threatened species or their habitats for the reasons identified above. In making this determination, the Services have considered whether adequate opportunities for public comment on the rule, including its potential environmental effects, have been provided. Our review of the proposed rule and the comments received on that proposal demonstrated that preparation of an Environmental Assessment is not necessary to obtain public input on this rule. Commentators had the opportunity to weigh in on the various aspects of this final rule and the final rule has been shaped, in part, by those comments. We conclude that preparation of an Environmental Assessment would not result in meaningful additional opportunities for comment, nor would it be likely to provide the Services with significant additional information to guide their decisionmaking process. Issue 4: One commenter requested that the Services include the concept of a ``cumulative'' incidental take statement in the incidental take statement rulemaking. Response: The statutory purposes and features of incidental take statements are discussed above in the preamble. As reflected in that discussion, incidental take statements are proposed-action specific. While biological opinions examine aggregate or cumulative impacts as part of the jeopardy and adverse modification analyses consistent with the best scientific and commercial data available (see, e.g., Services' Section 7 Handbook, at 4-33), incidental take statements do not, nor are they required to, include such analyses. Additionally, an incidental take statement may be issued only if the proposed action avoids jeopardizing the species or adversely modifying its critical habitat. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4). The Standards for Anticipating Take Issue 1: Several commenters requested the Services to clarify the standards for issuing an incidental take statement. Response: As noted above, in accordance with the ESA, the Services must provide an incidental take statement in a biological opinion in cases where we have concluded that a proposed Federal action will not violate section 7(a)(2) and take of listed species caused by the action is reasonably certain to occur. As discussed above, the Services are clarifying 50 CFR 402.14(g)(7) to clarify that reasonable certainty is the standard. Additionally, for framework programmatic actions, the Services are also clarifying that an incidental take statement is not required at the program (framework) level for those actions falling within the definition of framework programmatic action. In general, the standards for incidental take statements in the current regulations at 50 CFR 402.14(i) continue to apply as well as the standards associated with national policy for incidental take statements found on pages 4-43 through 4-58 of the Services' Section 7 Handbook (Services 1998). In accordance with those standards and consistent with governing case law and our regulations, the Services' general approach to incidental take statements is summarized below: Take is specifically defined in the regulations. For example, the terms ``harm'' and ``harass'' have specific meanings, and they are not synonymous (i.e., FWS harm and harass at 50 CFR 17.3; NMFS harm at 50 CFR 222.102). The effects analysis in a biological opinion should discuss, as appropriate, the anticipated effects of an action on listed species in biological terms that relate to the regulatory definitions of take. Similarly, the incidental take statement portion of a biological opinion should reflect the proper use of take terminology. If a proposed action includes a reasonable certainty of take, the biological opinion needs to make a rational connection between the effects of the action and the take considered in the incidental take statement. The terms and conditions must have a rational connection to the taking of a species and must give clear guidance to the recipient of the incidental take statement of what is expected and how the conditions (including those for monitoring of take-related impacts caused by the action) can be met. Issue 2: One commenter requested the Services to clarify if an incidental take statement for a program-level action can include an amount or extent of take if the analysis of the effects of the action supports such a finding. Response: Yes, if the Services have determined that incidental take is reasonably certain to occur and that such take will not violate section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Issue 3: One commenter noted that if a jeopardy determination can be made for a programmatic action, then quantification of anticipated take in an incidental take statement should also be possible. Response: As discussed in the preamble above, a meaningful effects analysis within a biological opinion may appropriately rely upon qualitative analysis to determine whether a framework programmatic action, inclusive of any proposed measures to minimize adverse impacts or conserve listed species, is adequately protective for purposes of making a jeopardy determination. Biological opinions on such programs often examine how the parameters of the program align with the survival and recovery of listed species. These assessments are often qualitative and do not provide the sort of specificity required for the purposes of incidental take statements. See the related discussion above in the section entitled ``Provision of an Incidental Take Statement with a Biological Opinion for Programmatic Actions.'' Issue 4: Several commenters requested the Services to affirm that reasonable and prudent measures in an incidental take statement must respect the ``minor change'' rule. Response: The Services find that the text in the current regulations under Sec. 402.14(i)(2) is clear and sufficient in this regard, and no changes are warranted. Reasonable and prudent measures and the terms and conditions that implement them cannot alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, [[Page 26841]] or timing of the action and may involve only minor changes. Programmatic Actions Issue 1: Several commenters requested the Services to more clearly express the regulatory definition of programmatic action and to more clearly explain why this term needs to be defined in the regulations. Response: After considering public comments and internal review, the Services are modifying the term and definition of programmatic action in this final rule. The term framework programmatic action is added to 50 CFR 402.02 and includes, for purposes of an incidental take statement, a Federal action that approves a framework for the development of future actions that are authorized, funded, or carried out and subject to section 7 requirements at a later time. The term mixed programmatic action and its definition are also added to 50 CFR 402.02 in this final rule to further distinguish the forms of programmatic actions that may be developed by Federal agencies. See discussion above for further detail regarding framework and mixed programmatic actions in the section entitled ``Inclusion of an Incidental Take Statement in a Biological Opinion for Programmatic Actions.'' Issue 2: Several commenters requested the Services to more clearly define key phrases in the proposed rule, including those for programmatic action and site-specific. Response: For programmatic action, see the response to Issue 1 above. The regulatory language of the rule no longer uses the term ``site-specific.'' In the Services' view, that term unnecessarily narrowed the definition of the types of programmatic actions to which this rule is intended to apply. Issue 3: One commenter requested the Services to clarify if programmatic actions covered under a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA fall within the scope of the proposed regulatory definition of programmatic action. Response: The Services anticipate that an HCP covering programmatic actions by non-Federal parties (e.g., States, local governments, private citizens) generally would not fall under the definition of framework programmatic action established by this rule. The Federal action involved in an HCP is the issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, and it is this action that is the subject of a biological opinion and incidental take statement. Such a permit generally is not expected to fall under the definition of framework programmatic action discussed herein since it is the underlying State/local/private action that is programmatic in nature, not the Federal permit itself, which is subject to consultation. Issue 4: Several commenters noted that the proposed rule fails to establish clear standards for programmatic actions and creates an ``enormous loophole in the consultation process that will harm listed species.'' Response: Based on the revisions and clarifications of the proposed rule in this final rule, the Services endeavor to articulate more clearly when an incidental take statement is required for programmatic actions. Additionally, as noted above in the response to Issue 1 in the subsection titled ``The Standards for Anticipating Take,'' an incidental take statement can be provided only where the Services have concluded in a biological opinion that a proposed Federal action and the resultant incidental take will not violate section 7(a)(2). This scenario is the same for both programmatic actions and project-specific actions that fall under such programs, which ensures that no loophole is created. Issue 5: One commenter requested the Services to clarify the standards that will be applied to develop incidental take statements for site-specific actions authorized under a programmatic action, especially those related to monitoring of take-related impacts. Response: The Services note that we are no longer using the term ``site-specific actions'' in our definitions for programmatic action. In general, for actions proceeding under a program that are anticipated to be subject to a subsequent section 7 consultation, the standards for incidental take statements in the current regulations at 50 CFR 402.14(i) would continue to apply as well as the standards associated with national policy for incidental take statements found on pages 4-43 through 4-58 of the Services' Section 7 Handbook. For a more detailed discussion of these standards, see the response to Issue 1 under ``The Standards for Anticipating Take'' above. Use of Surrogates Issue 1: One commenter suggested that the Services not require an incidental take statement to explain the causal link between the effects of an action to a surrogate and take of listed species under the proposed changes to Sec. 402.14(i)(1)(i) but rather use the agency record of decision to explain how those standards are met. At the very least, the commenter requested the Services to delete reference to ``clear'' in relation to setting a standard for determining when the level of anticipated take in terms of a surrogate has been exceeded because the word ``clear'' ``implies an extra burden on the agency to provide particular detail about the standard'' that may make the Services vulnerable to assertions that a take reinitiation trigger is not clear enough. Response: The requirement for the Services to explain the causal link is consistent with the Services' current national section 7 policy (see page 4-47 of the Services' Section 7 Handbook) and current case law. Additionally, in the section 7 context, the Services do not issue a record of decision; we issue a biological opinion and incidental take statement, which is the appropriate place to address the causal link between anticipated take and an identified surrogate. The Services have retained the word ``clear'' in Sec. 402.14(i)(1)(i) of the regulations because that term best conveys the intent to ensure the standard is understandable to the holder of the incidental take statement. Issue 2: Several commenters were concerned about the Services' proposed regulatory criteria for the use of surrogates to characterize the amount or extent of anticipated take and requested the Services to better define clear standards for the use of surrogates and subsequent monitoring. Some commenters suggested that these standards be less specific, and others suggested that they be more specific. Response: The standards for the use of surrogates, as finalized in this rule, are consistent with relevant case law and the Services' national policy on the use of surrogates (see page 4-47 of the Services' Section 7 Handbook), which has been in effect since 1998. Issue 3: One commenter objected to the Services' proposed regulatory authorization for the use of surrogates to address habitat surrogates that are fully coextensive with any aspect of the proposed project's impacts on habitat because such a provision is at odds with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007). Response: The Services consider a ``coextensive'' surrogate to be a surrogate that adopts a portion of a proposed action as a trigger for reinitiation. Coextensive surrogates allowed for by this rule adequately fulfill their role as independent reinitiation triggers because the monitoring and reporting requirements of the incidental take statement will be structured to ensure timely reporting of project impacts to a surrogate to ensure timely reinitiation of formal consultation, as appropriate, in the same [[Page 26842]] way as for non-coextensive surrogates. The preamble provides additional discussion illustrating how a coextensive surrogate may fulfill its intended function as an independent trigger for reinitiation. A surrogate that did not fulfill this role would not meet the requirements of this rule. Issue 4: Several commenters requested the Services to more clearly describe the meaning of ``not practical,'' ``clear standard,'' and ``causal link'' as these terms are applied in the use of surrogates. Response: The Services considered this comment in finalizing the preamble discussion on the use of surrogates and believe each of these terms is clearly described in a manner that is consistent with existing case law and the Services national policy on the use of surrogates (see page 4-47 of the Services' Section 7 Handbook), which has been in effect since 1998. Issue 5: Several commenters requested the Services to clarify that take of a surrogate is not a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Response: The Services affirm that take of a surrogate is not, in and of itself, a violation of sections 9(a)(1)(B), (C), or (G) of the ESA. Any efforts to prosecute a violation of the take prohibitions would be based on applying the appropriate evidentiary standards to support either a civil or criminal action. A surrogate functions to provide a trigger for reinitiation of consultation under Sec. 402.16(a). If the amount or extent of take is represented by a surrogate and the level of anticipated impact to that surrogate is exceeded, reinitiation may be required consistent with the terms of Sec. 402.16. The availability of the take exemption afforded by the incidental take statement is governed by compliance with the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions contained in the statement. Provided the holder of the incidental take statement is in compliance with all terms and conditions, the take exemption remains in place even if the extent of take as described by a surrogate is exceeded (16 U.S.C. 1536(o)(2); 50 CFR 402.14(i)(5)). However, if the extent of take is exceeded, the regulations require the action agency to immediately reinitiate consultation (50 CFR 402.14(i)(4)). Issue 6: Several commenters recommended the Services to replace the ``not practical'' standard in the proposed change to Sec. 402.14(i)(1)(i) with a ``scientifically impractical'' standard. Response: The Services decline to make this change. The Services consider the best scientific and commercial data available in determining whether it is not practical to express the amount of take in terms of individuals of the listed species. In making this determination, the Services must take into account relevant considerations, some of which may be considered broader than ``scientifically impractical,'' such as the scope and scale of the proposed action relative to the costs of any monitoring necessary to determine take of individuals of the listed species from the action. Issue 7: One commenter recommended that the Services delete reference to examples of surrogates in the proposed change to Sec. 402.14(i)(1)(i) because it may be interpreted as an unnecessary limit on the types of surrogates that may be used in an incidental take statement. Another commenter suggested that reference to examples of surrogates should be done only in the preamble section of the rule. Response: The use of examples in this rule is not intended to limit use of surrogates, and any surrogate that meets the standards set forth in this rule would be available. Issue 8: One commenter noted that the use of surrogates in incidental take statements should be done sparingly and under very narrow circumstances to avoid misapplication. Response: As discussed in the preamble, the use of surrogates is fact-pattern specific and dependent on meeting the standards set forth in this rule. Issue 9: One commenter requested the Services to further condition the proposed regulatory standards for the use of surrogates to include a requirement under an incidental take statement to gather data during the term of the Federal action to confirm that effects to the surrogate and the listed species that conform to take are highly likely to correspond. Response: Pursuant to this final rule, use of a surrogate in an incidental take statement is predicated on a finding that measuring take impacts to a listed species is not practical and on establishing a link, based on best available scientific information, between effects of the action to a surrogate and take of the listed species. The Services acknowledge that the body of science relied upon to make that link is likely to vary on a listed species-specific basis. To the extent that a link can be reasonably established, but more information would be helpful, the Services can request the Federal agency or an applicant to collect additional information in the ``Conservation Recommendations'' section of a biological opinion (see pages 4-62 and 4-63 in the Services' Section 7 Handbook). Implementation of the suggested requirement for such information as part of an incidental take statement, if appropriate, would need to comply with the regulatory requirement under Sec. 402.14(i)(2) for the scope of reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions to involve only minor changes to the proposed Federal action. It should also be noted that, in many cases, the surrogate used by the Services in an incidental take statement is habitat or a component of the habitat of the listed species. In those situations, the science related to the habitat requirements and behavior of the listed species informs the analytical basis for findings by the Services that a proposed action is reasonably certain to cause take of the listed species and establishes a causal link between effects to habitat and take of the listed species. For these reasons, quantifying and monitoring take impacts via project effects to the habitat of the listed species is a scientifically credible and practical approach for expressing and monitoring the anticipated level of take for situations where use of a surrogate meets the criteria set forth in this rule. In those instances where insufficient information exists to confirm the causal link, the surrogate would not meet the standard for its use in an incidental take statement. As noted above, the Services can request additional information on such a link in the ``Conservation Recommendations'' section of a biological opinion (see pages 4-62 and 4-63 in the Services' Section 7 Handbook). The Services intend to prepare implementation guidance for the use of surrogates to supplement the discussion in the Services' Section 7 Handbook and will consider the recommendations provided in public comments as well as in a recent commentary by Murphy and Weiland (2014) on our proposed rule. Issue 10: Several commenters requested the Services clarify if effects to habitat, including designated critical habitat, could be used as a surrogate measure for the amount or extent of anticipated take in an incidental take statement. Response: Effects to habitat can be used as a surrogate for expressing the amount or extent of take of a listed species if the criteria set forth in this final rule are met. Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory [[Page 26843]] Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant. Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency, or his or her designee, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale. Incidental take statements describe the amount or extent of incidental take that is anticipated to occur when a Federal action is implemented. The incidental take statement conveys an exemption from the ESA's take prohibitions provided that the action agency (and any applicant) complies with the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement. Terms and conditions cannot alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of the action and may involve only minor changes (50 CFR 402.14(i)(2)). The regulatory changes addressed in this rule will neither expand nor contract the reach of terms and conditions of an incidental take statement. As such, we foresee no economic effects from implementation of this final rule. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.): (a) This final rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. We have determined and certify under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As explained above, small governments would not be affected because the revised regulations will not place additional requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities. (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This regulation would not impose any additional management or protection requirements on the States or other entities. Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with E.O. 12630, we have determined that the final rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule (1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of listed species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property. Federalism (E.O. 13132) In accordance with E.O. 13132, we have considered whether this final rule has significant Federalism effects and have determined that a Federalism assessment is not required. This rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No intrusion on State policy or administration is expected; roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change; and fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. Therefore, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects or implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under the provisions of E.O. 13132. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) This final rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with affected Federally recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that there are no tribal lands affected by this rule, and, therefore, no such communications were made. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule does not contain collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Environmental Policy Act The Services have determined that this final rule will not result in any reasonably foreseeable effects to the environment and, therefore, that further NEPA review is not required. First, the rule codifies existing practices and case law with respect to use of surrogates and this codification of the status quo does not result in foreseeable environmental effects. Second, the timing of issuance of the incidental take statement will not change the substantive protections afforded to species and therefore the Service's regulations do not change the on-the-ground effects of incidental take statements. Finally, the update to the [[Page 26844]] regulations does not result in environmental impacts because it merely clarifies the Services' longstanding position since the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n. that an incidental take statement may be issued only when there is ``reasonable certainty'' that take of listed species will occur. To the extent the rule would result in reasonably foreseeable environmental effects, the Services have determined that the rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review and that no extraordinary circumstances are present. The rule qualifies for two categorical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.210(i) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, section 6.03c.3(i). Among other things, the exclusions apply to regulations that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case by case. 43 CFR 46.210. See also NAO section 216-6 6.03c.3(i) (substantively the same exclusion). First, the rule is of a legal, technical, or procedural nature. For surrogates, the rule clarifies when the Services may use a surrogate to establish the amount or extent of take. This clarification is consistent with the Services' existing national policy and applicable case law. For programmatic actions, the rule clarifies the procedural timing of when the Services will issue an incidental take statement. It does not alter substantive protections. Finally, the rule codifies the Services' longstanding interpretation of their existing regulations post Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n. that an incidental take statement can be issued only if there is ``reasonable certainty'' that take will occur. Second, any potential impacts of this rule are too broad, speculative, and conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will be examined as part of any NEPA analysis conducted by the Federal action agency. As explained above, the changes in the rule generally constitute clarifications that are consistent with existing practices as well as case law. As such, it would be speculative to try to analyze the effects of the codification of these practices. Furthermore, these changes apply to the nationwide implementation of section 7 consultations, which take place in a wide variety of contexts, for various activities, for and with numerous action agencies. This application allows analysis only at the broadest level and would not permit meaningful analysis. Furthermore, before any action is taken, the responsible action agency will be required to conduct any necessary NEPA analyses, including impacts to listed species and critical habitat. For these reasons, the second categorical exclusion applies to this rule. Additionally, none of the extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 CFR 46.215 and NAO 216-6 section 5.05c are triggered by the final rule. This rule does not involve a geographic area with unique characteristics, is not the subject of public controversy based on potential environmental consequences, will not result in uncertain environmental impacts or unique or unknown risks, does not establish a precedent or decision in principle about future proposals, will not have significant cumulative impacts, and will not have any adverse effects upon endangered or threatened species or their habitats for the reasons identified above. In making this determination, the Services have considered whether adequate opportunities for public comment on the rule, including its potential environmental effects, have been provided. Our review of the proposed rule and the comments received on that proposal demonstrated that preparation of an Environmental Assessment is not necessary to obtain public input on this rule. Commentators had the opportunity to weigh in on the various aspects of this final rule and the final rule has been shaped, in part, by those comments. We conclude that preparation of an Environmental Assessment would not result in meaningful additional opportunities for comment, nor would it be likely to provide the Services with significant additional information to guide their decisionmaking process. Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211) E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Because this action is not a significant energy action, no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Authority We are taking this action under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 402 Endangered and threatened wildlife, Fish, Intergovernmental relations, Plants (agriculture). Regulation Promulgation Accordingly, we amend subpart B of part 402, subchapter A of chapter IV, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 402--[AMENDED] 0 1. The authority citation for part 402 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 0 2. Amend Sec. 402.02 by adding definitions for Framework programmatic action and Mixed programmatic action in alphabetical order to read as follows: Sec. 402.02 Definitions. * * * * * Framework programmatic action means, for purposes of an incidental take statement, a Federal action that approves a framework for the development of future action(s) that are authorized, funded, or carried out at a later time, and any take of a listed species would not occur unless and until those future action(s) are authorized, funded, or carried out and subject to further section 7 consultation. * * * * * Mixed programmatic action means, for purposes of an incidental take statement, a Federal action that approves action(s) that will not be subject to further section 7 consultation, and also approves a framework for the development of future action(s) that are authorized, funded, or carried out at a later time and any take of a listed species would not occur unless and until those future action(s) are authorized, funded, or carried out and subject to further section 7 consultation. * * * * * 0 3. Amend Sec. 402.14 by: 0 a. Revising paragraphs (g)(7) and (i)(1)(i); 0 b. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (i)(3); and 0 c. Adding paragraph (i)(6). The revisions and additions read as follows: Sec. 402.14 Formal consultation. * * * * * (g) * * * (7) Formulate a statement concerning incidental take, if such take is reasonably certain to occur. * * * * * (i) * * * (1) * * * [[Page 26845]] (i) Specifies the impact, i.e., the amount or extent, of such incidental taking on the species (A surrogate (e.g., similarly affected species or habitat or ecological conditions) may be used to express the amount or extent of anticipated take provided that the biological opinion or incidental take statement: Describes the causal link between the surrogate and take of the listed species, explains why it is not practical to express the amount or extent of anticipated take or to monitor take-related impacts in terms of individuals of the listed species, and sets a clear standard for determining when the level of anticipated take has been exceeded.); * * * * * (3) * * * The reporting requirements will be established in accordance with 50 CFR 13.45 and 18.27 for FWS and 50 CFR 216.105 and 222.301(h) for NMFS. * * * * * (6) For a framework programmatic action, an incidental take statement is not required at the programmatic level; any incidental take resulting from any action subsequently authorized, funded, or carried out under the program will be addressed in subsequent section 7 consultation, as appropriate. For a mixed programmatic action, an incidental take statement is required at the programmatic level only for those program actions that are reasonably certain to cause take and are not subject to further section 7 consultation. * * * * * Dated: December 23, 2014. Michael J. Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior. Dated: April 30, 2015. Samuel D. Rouch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2015-10612 Filed 5-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-3510-22-P
![26832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
published in the Federal Register, in aspects of section 7 of the ESA related Under 50 CFR 402.14, Federal
text or Adobe Portable Document to incidental take statements. agencies must review their actions at the
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must DATES: This final rule is effective on earliest possible time to determine
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is June 10, 2015. whether any action may affect species
available free at the site. listed under the ESA or their designated
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available critical habitat. If such a determination
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal on the internet at http:// is made, formal consultation with the
Register by using the article search www.regulations.gov at Docket No. appropriate Service is required, unless
feature at: www.federalregister.gov. FWS–R9–ES–2011–0080. Comments one of the exceptions outlined at
Specifically, through the advanced and materials we received on the § 402.14(b) applies. Within 45 days after
search feature at this site, you can limit proposed rule, as well as supporting concluding formal consultation, the
your search to documents published by documentation we used in preparing Service delivers a biological opinion to
the Department. this rule, are available for public the Federal agency and any applicant.
inspection at http:// The biological opinion states the
Dated: May 5, 2015. www.regulations.gov. The comments, opinion of the Service as to whether or
Sue Swenson, materials, and documentation that we not the Federal action is likely to
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special considered in this rulemaking are also jeopardize the continued existence of
Education and Rehabilitative Services. available by appointment, during listed species or result in the
[FR Doc. 2015–11307 Filed 5–8–15; 8:45 am] normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and destruction or adverse modification of
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P Wildlife Service, Headquarters office, their critical habitat. If a proposed
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, action is reasonably certain to cause
Virginia 22041, (703) 358–2171, (703) incidental take of a listed species, the
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 358–1800 (facsimile); National Marine Services, under 50 CFR 402.14(i), issue
Fisheries Service, Headquarters office, along with the biological opinion an
Fish and Wildlife Service 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, incidental take statement that specifies,
Maryland 20910, (301) 427–8405, (301) among other requirements: The impact
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 713–0376 (facsimile). of such incidental taking on the listed
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: species; measures considered necessary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Craig Aubrey, Chief, Division of or appropriate to minimize the impact
Administration Environmental Review, U.S. Fish and of such take; terms and conditions
Wildlife Service, Department of the (including reporting requirements) that
50 CFR Part 402 Interior, Washington, DC 20240 implement the specified measures; and
(telephone: 703–358–2171); or Cathryn procedures to be used for handling or
[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2011–0080; disposing of individuals that are taken.
NOAA–120106024–5048–02; FF09E–31000–
E. Tortorici, Chief, Endangered Species
Act Interagency Cooperation Division, The current regulations at
156–FXES–1122–0900000] § 402.14(i)(1)(i) require the Services to
Office of Protected Resources, National
RIN 1018–AX85; 0648–BB81 Marine Fisheries Service, National express the impact of such incidental
Oceanic and Atmospheric taking of the species in terms of amount
Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Administration, Department of or extent. The preamble to the final rule
Species Act of 1973, as Amended; Commerce, Washington, DC (telephone: that set forth the current regulations
Incidental Take Statements 301–427–8400). Persons who use a discusses the use of a precise number of
telecommunications device for the deaf individuals or a description of the land
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, or marine area affected to express the
Interior; National Marine Fisheries (TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. amount or extent of anticipated take,
Service, National Oceanic and respectively (51 FR 19954, June 3,
Atmospheric Administration, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1986).
Commerce. Background Court decisions rendered over the last
ACTION: Final rule. decade regarding the adequacy of
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the incidental take statements have
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and take of fish or wildlife species listed as prompted the Services to clarify two
Wildlife Service and the National endangered with certain exceptions. aspects of the regulations addressing
Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, the incidental take statements: (1) The use
the Services), are amending the Services may prohibit the take of fish or of surrogates to express the amount or
incidental take statement provisions of wildlife species listed as threatened. extent of anticipated incidental take,
the implementing regulations for section Under section 3 of the ESA, the term including circumstances where project
7 of the Endangered Species Act of ‘‘take’’ means to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, impacts to the surrogate are coextensive
1973, as amended (ESA). The two hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, with at least one aspect of the project’s
primary purposes of the amendments or collect, or to attempt to engage in any scope; and (2) the circumstances under
are to address the use of surrogates to such conduct.’’ Section 7 of the ESA which providing an incidental take
express the amount or extent of provides for the exemption of incidental statement with a biological opinion on
anticipated incidental take and to refine take of listed fish or wildlife species a programmatic action is appropriate.
the basis for development of incidental caused by Federal agency actions that Through this final rule, the Services
take statements for programmatic the Services have found to be consistent are establishing prospective standards
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
actions. These changes are intended to with the provisions of section 7(a)(2). regarding incidental take statements.
improve the clarity and effectiveness of The Services jointly administer the ESA Consistent with the regulatory language
incidental take statements. The Services via regulations set forth in the Code of set forth in the proposed rule, we are
believe these regulatory changes are a Federal Regulations (CFR). This rule clarifying that the Services formulate an
reasonable exercise of their discretion in deals with regulations found in title 50 incidental take statement if such take is
interpreting particularly challenging of the CFR at part 402. reasonably certain to occur. Nothing in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM 11MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26922/page/1.svg)
![26834 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
clarifying that the ‘‘reasonable Take can be expressed also as a change in the quarter-acre wetland), which will
certainty’’ of take is the applicable habitat characteristics affecting the species determine whether these impacts are
standard for when the Services (e.g., for an aquatic species, changes in water consistent with the analysis in the
temperature or chemistry, flows, or sediment
formulate an incidental take statement. biological opinion. This assessment will
loads) where data or information exists
which links such changes to the take of the ensure that reinitiation of formal
Use of Surrogates
listed species. In some situations, the species consultation will be triggered if the
The Services acknowledge itself or the effect on the species may be extent of the anticipated taking
congressional preference for expressing difficult to detect. However, some detectable specified in the incidental take
the impacts of take in incidental take measure of effect should be provided. . . . statement is exceeded during the course
statements in terms of a numerical [I]f a sufficient causal link is demonstrated of the action where discretionary
limitation with respect to individuals of (i.e., the number of burrows affected or a Federal involvement or control over the
the listed species. However, Congress quantitative loss of cover, food, water quality,
action has been retained or is authorized
also recognized that a numerical value or symbionts), then this can establish a
measure of the impact on the species or its by law in accordance with 50 CFR
would not always be available and habitat and provide the yardstick for 402.16. In the above example,
intended that such numbers be reinitiation. (Endangered Species reinitiation of formal consultation
established only where possible. H.R. Consultation Handbook, U.S. Fish and would be triggered in the event a fourth
Rep. No. 97–567, at 27 (1982). The Wildlife Service and National Marine vernal pool was discovered during
preamble to the final rule that set forth Fisheries Service, March 1998, at 4–47–48 wetland fill or it was determined that
the current regulations also ([Services’ Section 7 Handbook]) the total amount of vernal pool habitat
acknowledges that exact numerical For example, under a hypothetical modified by the project exceeded the
limits on the amount of anticipated Clean Water Act permit, the U.S. Army identified one-quarter of an acre of
incidental take may be difficult to Corps of Engineers would authorize the wetland habitat. Thus, although fully
determine and the Services may instead fill of a quarter-acre of wetlands coextensive with the anticipated
specify the level of anticipated take in composed of three vernal pools impacts of the project on the vernal pool
terms of the extent of the land or marine occupied by the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, the surrogate nevertheless
area that may be affected (51 FR 19926 fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) to provides for a meaningful reinitiation
[19953–19954]; June 3, 1986). In fact, as construct a road-crossing. The wetland trigger consistent with the purposes of
the Services explained in the preamble fill is likely to kill all of the shrimp an incidental take statement.
to that rule, the use of descriptions of occupying the three vernal pools. A In addition to discussing the use of
extent of take can be more appropriate single pool may contain thousands of habitat surrogates for expressing the
than the use of numerical amounts individual shrimp as well as their eggs extent of anticipated take, the Services’
‘‘because for some species loss of habitat or cysts. For that reason, it is not Section 7 Handbook also discusses (on
resulting in death or injury to practical to express the amount or page 4–47) the use of impacts to non-
individuals may be more deleterious extent of anticipated take of this species listed species as a surrogate for
than the direct loss of a certain number or monitor take-related impacts in terms expressing the amount of anticipated
of individuals’’ (51 FR at 19954). of individual shrimp. Quantifying the take of a listed species:
Over the last 25 years of developing habitat area encompassing the three
incidental take statements, the Services vernal pools supporting this species as In some situations, the species itself or the
effect on the species may be difficult to
have found that, in many cases, the a surrogate for incidental take would be detect. However, some detectable measure of
biology of the listed species or the a practical and meaningful alternative to effect should be provided. For instance, the
nature of the proposed action makes it quantifying and monitoring the relative occurrence of the species in the local
impractical to detect or monitor take of anticipated incidental take in terms of community may be sufficiently predictable
individuals of the listed species. In individual shrimp caused by the that impacts on the community (usually
those situations, evaluating impacts to a proposed Federal permit action. It is a surrogate species in the community) serve as
surrogate such as habitat, ecological practical alternative because effects to a measure of take, e.g., impacts to listed
conditions, or similar affected species vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat are mussels may be measured by an index or
other censusing technique that is based on
may be the most reasonable and causally related to take of the fairy surveys of non-listed mussels. In this case,
meaningful measure of assessing take of shrimp, these effects can be readily the discussion determining the level at which
listed species. monitored, and the extent of impacts to incidental take will be exceeded (reinitiation
The courts also have recognized that occupied habitat provides a clear level) describes factors for the non-listed
it is not always practicable to establish standard for when the anticipated extent mussels indicating impact on the listed
the precise number of individuals of the of take has been exceeded. species, such as an amount or extent of
listed species that will be taken and that The Ninth Circuit Court’s holding in decrease in numbers or recruitment, or in
‘‘surrogate’’ measures are acceptable to Oregon Natural Resources Council v. community dynamics.
establish the impact of take on the Allen, 476 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007) We are amending § 402.14(i)(1)(i) of
species if there is a link between the could be read to suggest that such the regulations to clarify that surrogates
surrogate and take. See Arizona Cattle surrogates cannot be coextensive with may be used to express the amount or
Growers’ Ass’n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife the project’s scope for fear that extent of anticipated take, provided the
Service, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2001). reinitiation of consultation would not be biological opinion or the incidental take
It is often more practical and triggered until the project is complete. statement: (1) Describes the causal link
meaningful to monitor project effects However, even under circumstances of between the surrogate and take of the
upon surrogates, which can also provide a coextensive surrogate (such as in the listed species; (2) describes why it is not
a clear standard for determining when above example), the action agency or practical to express the amount of
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
the amount or extent of anticipated take applicant will be required under the anticipated take or to monitor take-
has been exceeded and consultation incidental take statement to monitor related impacts in terms of individuals
should be reinitiated. Accordingly, the project impacts to the surrogate during of the listed species; and (3) sets a clear
Services adopted the use of surrogates the course of the action (e.g., required standard for determining when the
as part of our national policy for monitoring to confirm the action does amount or extent of the taking has been
preparing incidental take statements: not exceed fill of three vernal pools in exceeded. Such flexibility may be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM 11MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26922/page/3.svg)
![26836 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
opinion as compared with an incidental distinction between ‘‘effects’’ of the occur. The Services are amending 50
take statement. program and the purpose of a biological CFR 402.14(g)(7) to implement this
Unlike the purposes of an incidental opinion on that program and ‘‘take’’ and clarification. The Services do not
take statement, the analysis in a the purpose of an incidental take consider this change to be substantive,
biological opinion is used to determine statement in the subsequent but rather a clarification of the existing
whether an agency action is likely to consultation on later actions carried out standard for issuance of an incidental
jeopardize a listed species or adversely under the program. Given that no take statement.
modify designated critical habitat. See actions that would lead to take are Expressly including the standard of
16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A); 50 CFR authorized when the framework reasonable certainty in this final rule at
402.14(h); H.R. Rep. 97–567, at 10 program itself is adopted, the Services’ 50 CFR 402.14(g)(7) is consistent with
(1982). Conducting an effects analysis position is that take is not anticipated the ESA, existing section 7 regulations,
on a framework programmatic action from the adoption of the program in and the Services’ current practice, the
that examines the potential effects of of itself. As a result, the Services find Services’ Section 7 Handbook, and
implementing the program is fully that it is appropriate not to provide an applicable case law. The three
consistent with the purposes of a incidental take statement at the program requirements that must be met under
biological opinion. The analysis in a level and to address take during section 7 of the ESA before an
biological opinion allows for a broad- subsequent steps when specific actions incidental take statement is issued
scale examination of a program’s are authorized under the program and implicitly suggest that a finding of take
potential impacts on a listed species and subsequent consultation occurs. As is required. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)(B)
its designated critical habitat—an mentioned above, if, however, a (‘‘the taking of an endangered species or
examination that is not as readily decision adopting a program framework a threatened species incidental to the
conducted when the later, action- also includes decisions authorizing agency action will not violate such
specific consultation occurs on a actions that will not be subject to further subsection’’) (emphasis added). The
subsequent action developed under the Federal authorization or section 7 statute does not set forth the standard by
program framework. The provisions of consultation and take is reasonably which incidental take is to be
an incidental take statement, including certain to occur, then an incidental take determined, however, leaving room for
the amount and extent of take and the statement would be necessary for those the Services to offer their interpretation.
terms and conditions, necessarily must portions of the programmatic action that As for the regulations, the section 7
be specific to ensure they can be will result in incidental take. The regulations expressly apply the
followed and allow for a determination Services have included recognition of ‘‘reasonable certainty’’ standard to
of when they have been exceeded. See this circumstance in the regulatory ‘‘indirect effects’’ that are defined as
16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4); 50 CFR 402.14(i). definition of the term ‘‘mixed part of the ‘‘effects of the action.’’ See
In contrast, a meaningful effects analysis programmatic action’’ in this final rule. 50 CFR 402.02. The existing provision
within a biological opinion may Action agencies often seek to engage governing the contents of an incidental
appropriately rely upon qualitative in consultation on programmatic actions take statement at 50 CFR 402.16(i)(1)
analysis to determine whether a to gain efficiencies in the section 7 reflects the requirement that at least
program and its set of measures consultation process. The Services some level of incidental take be
intended to minimize impacts or anticipate this rule will afford action anticipated to meaningfully include the
conserve listed species are adequately agencies and the Services with required contents of an incidental take
protective for purposes of making a substantial flexibility to efficiently and statement, e.g., the impact of the take
jeopardy determination. Programmatic effectively conduct consultation, while (amount or extent of take), and the
biological opinions examine how the ensuring compliance with reasonable and prudent measures
parameters of the program align with responsibilities under the ESA. For considered ‘‘necessary or appropriate to
the survival and recovery of listed example, if an action agency designs a minimize such impact.’’
species. This approach reflects the programmatic action and provides The Services’ Section 7 Handbook,
different statutory purposes that the two adequate information to inform the issued in 1998, identifies a similar
related but separate documents were development of a biological opinion standard of ‘‘reasonably likely’’ to
intended to address. with an incidental take statement determine when to issue an incidental
Distinctions between ‘‘effects’’ and covering future actions implemented take statement. The Handbook predates
‘‘take’’ at the programmatic scale under the program, the Services the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arizona
support analyzing potential program anticipate they will be able to provide Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. U.S. Fish and
implementation as part of the ‘‘effects’’ such an opinion and incidental take Wildlife Service, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir.
of the framework programmatic action statement to the action agency under 2001). In that case, the Ninth Circuit
but not providing an incidental take this rule. Action agencies may request provided a lengthy discussion of when
statement at the program level. The ESA assistance from the Services to help the Services must issue an incidental
itself uses different terms in specifying determine how a program could best be take statement. Examining the statute
the contents of a biological opinion for addressed pursuant to this rule. The and the regulations, the court held that
jeopardy purposes (‘‘detail[] how the Services also encourage action agencies there must be a reasonable basis to
agency action affects the species’’) and to consider how any section 7 conclude that incidental take will occur
an incidental take statement (focused on consultation on a programmatic action in order to issue an incidental take
‘‘take’’). See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A), is consistent with the action agency’s statement. Although not definitively
(b)(4). The ESA also does not define other environmental review processes. resolving the issue, the court cited
‘‘affects’’ in any way. favorably to the lower court’s
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
For purposes of a biological opinion Standard for Issuance of an Incidental application of the standard of
on a framework programmatic action, Take Statement ‘‘reasonable certainty’’ for issuance of an
the Services typically evaluate the In this final rule, the Services are incidental take statement. The court
potential implementation of the clarifying that the standard for issuance particularly expressed concern about
program as ‘‘effects of the action.’’ The of an incidental take statement is the imposition of conditions on
Services can legitimately draw a ‘‘reasonable certainty’’ that take will otherwise lawful land use absent
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM 11MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26922/page/5.svg)
![26838 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
reasons discussed above, the Services Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 provide an incidental take statement—
withdrew the proposed regulatory U.S. 837, 865–66 (1984). First, the any take resulting from the subsequent
definition of programmatic incidental definition of ‘‘take’’ itself contemplates actions under program will be
take statement in this final rule. On that immediate actions that would addressed in the later action-specific
basis, we are not responding to public potentially injure a listed species consultation. Not providing a take-
comments on this aspect of the (‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, related reinitiation trigger under an
proposed rule except as they relate to wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect’’ incidental take statement for the
the standards for development of an (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The programmatic framework programmatic action is
incidental take statement. We also are (framework) action by itself and by supportable given the Services’ position
not responding to public comments definition under this rule does not that take is not anticipated at the
beyond the scope of the proposed rule, authorize any actions that would result program (framework) level in the
including those comments that in these sorts of immediate injuries to a particular circumstance where no
addressed other portions of the section listed species. No take will occur at the specific action is authorized until a
7 consultation regulations not related to programmatic level, and any take that subsequent action developed under the
the formulation of incidental take results will result only from a second (or framework is taken and subsequent ESA
statements. The following responses to subsequent) authorization under the consultation occurs. Also, for decisions
public comments are segregated under programmatic action. As discussed adopting framework programmatic
four categories: (1) General; (2) the above, framework programmatic actions actions that also authorize actions to
standards for anticipating take; (3) may include authorization for actions proceed without any further Federal
incidental take statements for that will not be subject to further authorization or section 7 consultation
programmatic actions; and (4) the use of Federal authorization or section 7 anticipated, an incidental take statement
surrogates to express the amount or consultation and are reasonably certain is required under this rule where the
extent of take. to cause take. Under those action is determined to be compliant
circumstances, an incidental take with section 7(a)(2) and take is
General
statement would be necessary for that reasonably certain to occur. An example
Issue 1: Several commenters portion of the framework programmatic of such actions might include Federal
requested an extension of the public action. The Services have included programs in which subsequent approval
comment period. recognition of this circumstance in the for actions proceeding under the
Response: The Services believe the program are delegated to States.
regulatory definition of mixed
60-day public comment period provided As defined in this rule and discussed
programmatic action in this final rule.
adequate opportunity for the public to above, a mixed programmatic action
review and comment on the proposed Given the step-wise nature of such may include authorization for actions
regulations. programmatic actions, sections 7(b)(4) that will not be subject to further
Issue 2: One commenter stated that and 7(o)(2) of the ESA can be read to Federal authorization or section 7
the proposed changes to the section 7 support not providing an incidental take consultation and are reasonably certain
regulations are not within the Services’ statement at the programmatic level to cause take. Under those
regulatory authority. under these circumstances. If incidental circumstances, an incidental take
Response: The Services regard the take is anticipated to result at this stage, statement would be necessary for that
proposed changes as fully consistent section 7(b)(4) appears to require the portion of the programmatic action. The
with their discretionary authority to Services to issue an incidental take Services have included recognition of
address ambiguous aspects and statement (‘‘the Secretary shall provide this circumstance in the regulatory
challenging issues that arise under the Federal agency and applicant . . . definition of mixed programmatic
section 7 of the ESA. with a written statement’’) (16 U.S.C. action in this final rule. Examples of
Congress included the incidental take 1536(b)(4) (emphasis added). Although mixed programmatic action would
statement provisions in the 1982 section 7(b)(4) does not expressly include land management plans in
amendments to the ESA to resolve the require a finding that incidental take is which particular actions, such as
situation in which a Federal action anticipated to result from the agency establishment of campgrounds or off-
agency or an applicant has been advised action, the three requirements that must road vehicle use, are approved to
by the Services that the proposed action be met before an incidental take proceed directly, while the plan itself
is not likely to jeopardize the continued statement is issued implicitly suggest provides a framework for the
existence of listed species but is this. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)(B) (‘‘the development of future actions occurring
anticipated to result in the taking of taking of an endangered species or a in the action area that are authorized,
listed species incidental to that action, threatened species incidental to the funded, or carried out at a later time and
which would otherwise violate the take agency action will not violate such subject to section 7 consultation
prohibition of section 9. See H.R. Rep. subsection’’) (emphasis added). These requirements, as appropriate.
97–567, 26–27 (1982). According to the provisions provide room for the Section 7(o)(2) of the ESA supports
legislative history of the ESA, by Services to adopt the position that take the Services’ interpretation because it
requiring the Services to specify the will not result at the programmatic appears to contemplate only a single
impact of take on the listed species, (framework) level in and of itself since incidental take statement to fully
Congress also intended reinitiation no specific action is authorized when exempt take. The language of section
triggers (amount or extent of take) to be the program is adopted. Any take that 7(o)(2) provides ‘‘any taking that is in
required as part of the incidental take will result from the program will be compliance with the terms and
statement. See id. addressed, as appropriate, when a conditions [of an incidental take
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The ESA is sufficiently ambiguous to subsequent specific action(s) is statement] . . . shall not be considered
allow the Services to adopt a statutory authorized and the resulting action- to be a prohibited taking.’’ (16 U.S.C.
interpretation that supports not specific consultation occurs. Because of 1536(o)(2)). If the Services were to
providing an incidental take statement the framework nature of the provide an incidental take statement for
for a framework programmatic action, as programmatic actions at issue, the a framework programmatic action where
appropriate. See Chevron USA, Inc. v. Services are not avoiding the duty to any take will result only from future
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM 11MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26922/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 26839
authorizations under the programmatic intended that such numbers be environment and, therefore, that further
(framework) action, the Services would established only where possible (H.R. NEPA review is not required. First, the
still require a second incidental take Rep. No. 97–567, at 27). rule codifies existing practices and case
statement for those subsequent actions In practice, over the last 25 years of law with respect to use of surrogates
because that is the point at which developing incidental take statements, and this codification of the status quo
adequate information typically would the Services have found that in many does not result in foreseeable
be available to identify amount or extent cases the biology of the listed species or environmental effects. Second, the
of take and to provide action-specific the nature of the proposed action makes timing of issuance of the incidental take
terms and conditions. Requiring an it impractical to detect or monitor take statement will not change the
incidental take statement for the of individuals. In those situations, substantive protections afforded to
framework programmatic action to fully evaluating impacts to a surrogate such species and therefore the Service’s
exempt the take associated with as habitat, ecological conditions, or regulations do not change the on-the-
implementing the program or similar affected species may be the most ground effects of incidental take
framework, however, may be reasonable and meaningful measure of statements. Finally, the update to the
inconsistent with section 7(o)(2), which assessing take of listed species and is regulations does not result in
exempts ‘‘any taking’’ that complies fully consistent with the language and environmental impacts because it
with the terms and conditions of the purposes of the ESA. merely clarifies the Services’
incidental take statement (emphasis The courts have also recognized that longstanding position since the Ninth
added). Thus, not providing an it is not always practicable to establish Circuit’s decision in Arizona Cattle
incidental take statement at the program the precise number of individuals that Growers’ Ass’n. that an incidental take
(framework) level avoids a potential will be taken. Thus under a Chevron statement may be issued only when
inconsistency with the language of analysis, the ESA permits the Services there is ‘‘reasonable certainty’’ that take
section 7(o)(2). to rely upon surrogate measures to of listed species will occur.
Additionally, as discussed above, the establish the impact of take on the To the extent the rule would result in
language of the ESA leaves sufficient species if there is a link between the reasonably foreseeable environmental
room to draw a distinction between surrogate and take. See Arizona Cattle effects, the Services have determined
‘‘effects’’ and ‘‘take’’ at the Growers’ Ass’n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife that the rule is categorically excluded
programmatic scale, and thus to allow Service, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2001); from further NEPA review and that no
for an analysis of program see also Oregon Natural Resource extraordinary circumstances are present.
implementation as part of the ‘‘effects’’ Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1041 The rule qualifies for two categorical
of a framework programmatic action but (9th Cir. 2007). It is often more practical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.210(i)
not to provide an incidental take and meaningful to monitor project and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
statement at the program (framework) effects upon surrogates, which can also 216–6, section 6.03c.3(i). Among other
level. The ESA itself uses different provide a clear standard for determining things, the exclusions apply to
terms in specifying the contents of a when the amount or extent of regulations that are of an administrative,
biological opinion for jeopardy purposes anticipated take has been exceeded and financial, legal, technical, or procedural
(‘‘detail how the agency action affects consultation should be reinitiated. nature; or whose environmental effects
the species’’) and an incidental take Accordingly, the Services have already are too broad, speculative, or conjectural
statement (focused on ‘‘take’’). See 16 exercised their discretionary authority to lend themselves to meaningful
U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A), (b)(4) (emphasis to adopt the use of surrogates as part of analysis and will later be subject to the
added). The ESA also does not define our joint national policy for preparing NEPA process, either collectively or
‘‘affects’’ in any way. Thus, it is up to incidental take statements in the Section case by case. 43 CFR 46.210. See also
the Services to fill in these statutory 7 Handbook (Services 1998). NAO section 216–6 6.03c.3(i)
gaps in the ESA in a reasonable way. Issue 3: Commenters noted that the (substantively the same exclusion).
See National Cable & proposed rule is subject to the First, the rule is of a legal, technical,
Telecommunications Ass’n. v. Brand X requirements of the National or procedural nature. For surrogates, the
Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), rule clarifies when the Services may use
Likewise, the use of surrogates in an including the requirements applicable a surrogate to establish the amount or
incidental take statement is an exercise to environmental impact statements, extent of take. This clarification is
of the Services’ reasonable discretion in that must be satisfied before a final consistent with the Services’ existing
carrying out their responsibilities under decision is made on the proposed national policy and applicable case law.
section 7 of the ESA. The statutory regulatory changes. For programmatic actions, the rule
language associated with reinitiation Response: The categorical exclusions clarifies the procedural timing of when
triggers is quite general, providing that at 43 CFR 46.210(i) and NOAA the Services will issue an incidental
as part of an incidental take statement Administrative Order 216–6, section take statement. It does not alter
the Services shall ‘‘specif[y] the impact 6.03c.3(i) apply to this joint rule. substantive protections. Finally, the rule
of such incidental taking on the Among other things, the exclusions codifies the Services’ longstanding
species’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)(i)). This apply to regulations that are of an interpretation of their existing
language leaves substantial room for administrative, financial, legal, regulations post Arizona Cattle Growers’
statutory interpretation on the part of technical, or procedural nature and Ass’n. that an incidental take statement
the Services, including the use of whose environmental effects are too can be issued only if there is
surrogates. broad, speculative, or conjectural to ‘‘reasonable certainty’’ that take will
The legislative history of the 1982 lend themselves to meaningful analysis occur.
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
amendments to the ESA, which added and will later be subject to the NEPA Second, any potential impacts of this
the incidental take statement provisions, process either collectively or case by rule are too broad, speculative, and
reflects congressional support for the case. 43 CFR 46.210. conjectural to lend themselves to
use of surrogates as well. Congress The Services have determined that meaningful analysis and will be
recognized that a numerical value this final rule will not result in any examined as part of any NEPA analysis
would not always be available and reasonably foreseeable effects to the conducted by the Federal action agency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM 11MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26922/page/8.svg)
![26844 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
regulations does not result in meaningful analysis. Furthermore, List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 402
environmental impacts because it before any action is taken, the Endangered and threatened wildlife,
merely clarifies the Services’ responsible action agency will be Fish, Intergovernmental relations, Plants
longstanding position since the Ninth required to conduct any necessary (agriculture).
Circuit’s decision in Arizona Cattle NEPA analyses, including impacts to
Growers’ Ass’n. that an incidental take listed species and critical habitat. For Regulation Promulgation
statement may be issued only when these reasons, the second categorical Accordingly, we amend subpart B of
there is ‘‘reasonable certainty’’ that take exclusion applies to this rule. part 402, subchapter A of chapter IV,
of listed species will occur. title 50 of the Code of Federal
To the extent the rule would result in Additionally, none of the
extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 Regulations, as set forth below:
reasonably foreseeable environmental
effects, the Services have determined CFR 46.215 and NAO 216–6 section PART 402—[AMENDED]
that the rule is categorically excluded 5.05c are triggered by the final rule. This
from further NEPA review and that no rule does not involve a geographic area ■ 1. The authority citation for part 402
extraordinary circumstances are present. with unique characteristics, is not the continues to read as follows:
The rule qualifies for two categorical subject of public controversy based on Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.210(i) potential environmental consequences, ■ 2. Amend § 402.02 by adding
and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) will not result in uncertain definitions for Framework
216–6, section 6.03c.3(i). Among other environmental impacts or unique or programmatic action and Mixed
things, the exclusions apply to unknown risks, does not establish a programmatic action in alphabetical
regulations that are of an administrative, precedent or decision in principle about
financial, legal, technical, or procedural order to read as follows:
future proposals, will not have
nature; or whose environmental effects significant cumulative impacts, and will § 402.02 Definitions.
are too broad, speculative, or conjectural * * * * *
not have any adverse effects upon
to lend themselves to meaningful Framework programmatic action
endangered or threatened species or
analysis and will later be subject to the means, for purposes of an incidental
NEPA process, either collectively or their habitats for the reasons identified
above. take statement, a Federal action that
case by case. 43 CFR 46.210. See also approves a framework for the
NAO section 216–6 6.03c.3(i) In making this determination, the development of future action(s) that are
(substantively the same exclusion). Services have considered whether authorized, funded, or carried out at a
First, the rule is of a legal, technical, adequate opportunities for public later time, and any take of a listed
or procedural nature. For surrogates, the comment on the rule, including its species would not occur unless and
rule clarifies when the Services may use potential environmental effects, have until those future action(s) are
a surrogate to establish the amount or been provided. Our review of the authorized, funded, or carried out and
extent of take. This clarification is proposed rule and the comments subject to further section 7 consultation.
consistent with the Services’ existing received on that proposal demonstrated
national policy and applicable case law. * * * * *
that preparation of an Environmental Mixed programmatic action means,
For programmatic actions, the rule Assessment is not necessary to obtain
clarifies the procedural timing of when for purposes of an incidental take
public input on this rule. Commentators statement, a Federal action that
the Services will issue an incidental
had the opportunity to weigh in on the approves action(s) that will not be
take statement. It does not alter
substantive protections. Finally, the rule various aspects of this final rule and the subject to further section 7 consultation,
codifies the Services’ longstanding final rule has been shaped, in part, by and also approves a framework for the
interpretation of their existing those comments. We conclude that development of future action(s) that are
regulations post Arizona Cattle Growers’ preparation of an Environmental authorized, funded, or carried out at a
Ass’n. that an incidental take statement Assessment would not result in later time and any take of a listed
can be issued only if there is meaningful additional opportunities for species would not occur unless and
‘‘reasonable certainty’’ that take will comment, nor would it be likely to until those future action(s) are
occur. provide the Services with significant authorized, funded, or carried out and
Second, any potential impacts of this additional information to guide their subject to further section 7 consultation.
rule are too broad, speculative, and decisionmaking process. * * * * *
conjectural to lend themselves to ■ 3. Amend § 402.14 by:
meaningful analysis and will be Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O.
■ a. Revising paragraphs (g)(7) and
examined as part of any NEPA analysis 13211)
(i)(1)(i);
conducted by the Federal action agency. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to ■ b. Revising the second sentence of
As explained above, the changes in the prepare Statements of Energy Effects paragraph (i)(3); and
rule generally constitute clarifications when undertaking certain actions. This ■ c. Adding paragraph (i)(6).
that are consistent with existing The revisions and additions read as
rule is not expected to significantly
practices as well as case law. As such, follows:
affect energy supplies, distribution, and
it would be speculative to try to analyze
the effects of the codification of these use. Because this action is not a § 402.14 Formal consultation.
practices. Furthermore, these changes significant energy action, no Statement * * * * *
apply to the nationwide implementation of Energy Effects is required. (g) * * *
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
of section 7 consultations, which take Authority (7) Formulate a statement concerning
place in a wide variety of contexts, for incidental take, if such take is
various activities, for and with We are taking this action under the reasonably certain to occur.
numerous action agencies. This authority of the Endangered Species Act * * * * *
application allows analysis only at the of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et (i) * * *
broadest level and would not permit seq.). (1) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM 11MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26922/page/13.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 26845
(i) Specifies the impact, i.e., the when the level of anticipated take has the programmatic level only for those
amount or extent, of such incidental been exceeded.); program actions that are reasonably
taking on the species (A surrogate (e.g., * * * * * certain to cause take and are not subject
similarly affected species or habitat or (3) * * * The reporting requirements to further section 7 consultation.
ecological conditions) may be used to will be established in accordance with * * * * *
express the amount or extent of 50 CFR 13.45 and 18.27 for FWS and 50
Dated: December 23, 2014.
anticipated take provided that the CFR 216.105 and 222.301(h) for NMFS.
Michael J. Bean,
biological opinion or incidental take * * * * *
(6) For a framework programmatic Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
statement: Describes the causal link
action, an incidental take statement is and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of
between the surrogate and take of the the Interior.
listed species, explains why it is not not required at the programmatic level;
any incidental take resulting from any Dated: April 30, 2015.
practical to express the amount or
action subsequently authorized, funded, Samuel D. Rouch, III,
extent of anticipated take or to monitor
take-related impacts in terms of or carried out under the program will be Deputy Assistant Administrator for
addressed in subsequent section 7 Regulatory Programs, National Marine
individuals of the listed species, and Fisheries Service.
sets a clear standard for determining consultation, as appropriate. For a
mixed programmatic action, an [FR Doc. 2015–10612 Filed 5–8–15; 8:45 am]
incidental take statement is required at BILLING CODE 4310–55–3510–22–P
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM 11MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_26922/page/14.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-21 10:25:46
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 10:25:46
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on June 10, 2015. | |
| Contact | Craig Aubrey, Chief, Division of Environmental Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240 (telephone: 703-358-2171); or Cathryn E. Tortorici, Chief, Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (telephone: 301-427-8400). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 26832 | |
| RIN Number | 1018-AX85 and 0648-BB81 | |
| CFR Associated | Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Fish; Intergovernmental Relations and Plants (agriculture) |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR