[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26832-26845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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