[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44976-45018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17517]



[[Page 44975]]

Vol. 84

Tuesday,

No. 166

August 27, 2019

Part II





 Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 402





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for 
Interagency Cooperation; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 44976]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 402

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009; FXES11140900000-189-FF09E300000; 
Docket No. 180207140-8140-01; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-BC87; 0648-BH41


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for 
Interagency Cooperation

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior; National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FWS and NMFS (collectively referred to as the ``Services'' or 
``we'') revise portions of our regulations that implement section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (``Act''). The revisions 
to the regulations clarify, interpret, and implement portions of the 
Act concerning the interagency cooperation procedures.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Frazer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240, telephone 
202/208-4646; or Samuel D. Rauch, III, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Department of Commerce, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 
MD 20910, telephone 301/427-8000. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Title 50, part 402, of the Code of Federal Regulations establishes 
the procedural regulations governing interagency cooperation under 
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation 
with and with the assistance of the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Commerce (the ``Secretaries''), to insure that any action authorized, 
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such 
species.
    On July 25, 2018, the Services published a proposed rule to amend 
our regulations that implement section 7 of the Act (83 FR 35178). The 
proposed rule addressed alternative consultation mechanisms; the 
definitions of ``destruction or adverse modification'' and ``effects of 
the action''; certainty of measures proposed by action agencies to 
avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects; and other improvements to 
the consultation process. The proposed rule also sought comment on: The 
advisability of addressing several other issues related to implementing 
section 7 of the Act; the extent to which the proposed changes outlined 
would affect timeframes and resources needed to conduct consultation; 
anticipated cost savings resulting from the proposed changes; and any 
other specific changes to any provisions in part 402 of the 
regulations. The proposed rule requested that all interested parties 
submit written comments on the proposal by September 24, 2018. The 
Services also contacted Federal and State agencies, certain industries 
regularly involved in Act section 7(a)(2) consultation, Tribes, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other interested parties and invited 
them to comment on the proposal.
    In this final rule, we focus our discussion on changes from the 
proposed regulation revisions, including changes based on comments we 
received during the comment period. For background relevant to these 
regulations, we refer the reader to the proposed rule (83 FR 35178, 
July 25, 2018).
    This final rule is one of three related final rules that the 
agencies are publishing in this issue of the Federal Register. All of 
these documents finalize revisions to various regulations that 
implement the Act. The revisions to the regulations in this rule are 
prospective; they are not intended to require that any previous 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act be reevaluated at the 
time this final rule becomes effective (see DATES, above).

Final Regulatory Revisions

Discussion of Changes From Proposed Rule

    Below, we discuss the changes between the proposed regulatory text 
and regulatory text that we are finalizing with this rule. We did not 
revise the regulatory text between the proposed and final rules for the 
definitions of ``Destruction or adverse modification,'' ``Director,'' 
and ``Programmatic consultation''. Therefore, we do not address those 
definitions within this portion of the preamble.

Section 402.02--Definitions

Definition of ``Effects of the Action''
    The Services proposed to revise the definition of ``effects of the 
action'' in a manner that simplified the definition by collapsing the 
terms ``direct, ``indirect,'' interrelated,'' and ``interdependent'' 
and by applying a two-part test of ``but for'' and ``reasonably certain 
to occur.''
    Effects of the action was proposed to be defined as all effects on 
the listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed 
action, including the effects of other activities that are caused by 
the proposed action. An effect or activity is caused by the proposed 
action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is 
reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in 
time and may include effects occurring outside the immediate area 
involved in the action.
    The Services requested comments on (1) the extent to which the 
proposed revised definition simplified and clarified the definition of 
``effects of the action''; (2) whether the proposed definition altered 
the scope of effects considered by the Services; (3) the extent to 
which the scope of the proposed revised definition was appropriate for 
the purposes of the Act; and (4) how the proposed revised definition 
may be improved. We received numerous comments regarding the proposed 
revision to the definition of ``effects of the action,'' including the 
two-part test, and the scope of the definition as proposed. Some 
commenters felt that the proposed two-part test for both effects and 
activities caused by the proposed action was either inappropriate or 
still subject to misapplication and misinterpretation. Others were 
concerned that the changed definition would narrow the scope of effects 
of the action, resulting in unaddressed negative effects to listed 
species and critical habitat. As stated in the proposed rule, the 
Services' intended purpose of the revised definition of effects of the 
action was to

[[Page 44977]]

simplify the definition while still retaining the scope of the 
assessment required to ensure a complete analysis of the effects of 
proposed actions. Further, we stated that by revising the definition, 
consultations between the Services and action agencies, including 
consultations involving applicants, can focus on identifying the 
effects and not on categorizing them. The two-part test was included to 
provide a transparent description of how the Services identify effects 
of the proposed action. A summary of the comments and our responses are 
below at Summary of Comments and Recommendations.
    In response to comments and upon further consideration, the 
Services are adopting a revised, final definition of ``effects of the 
action'' to further clarify that effects of the action include all 
consequences of a proposed action, including consequences of any 
activities caused by the proposed action. We revised the definition to 
read as set out in the regulatory text at the end of the document.
    The principal changes we have made in this final rule include: (1) 
Introducing the term ``consequences'' to help define what we mean by an 
effect; and (2) emphasizing that to be considered the effect of the 
action under consultation, the consequences caused by the action would 
not occur but for the proposed action and must be reasonably certain to 
occur.
    The Services believe that the definition of ``effects of the 
action'' contained in this final rule will reduce confusion and 
streamline the process by which the Services identify the relevant 
effects caused by a proposed action. The Services do not intend for 
these regulatory changes to alter how we analyze the effects of a 
proposed action. We will continue to review all relevant effects of a 
proposed action as we have in past decades, but we determined it was 
not necessary to attach labels to various types of effects through 
regulatory text. That is, we intend to capture those effects 
(consequences) previously listed in the regulatory definition of 
effects of the action--direct, indirect, and the effects from 
interrelated and interdependent activities--in the new definition. 
These effects are captured in the new regulatory definition by the term 
``all consequences'' to listed species and critical habitat.
    We introduced the term ``consequences,'' in part, to avoid using 
the term ``effects'' to define ``effects of the action''. Consequences 
are a result or effect of an action, and we apply the two-part test to 
determine whether a given consequence should be considered an effect of 
the proposed action that is under consultation. Requiring evaluation of 
all consequences caused by the proposed action allows the Services to 
focus on the impact of the proposed action to the listed species and 
critical habitat, while being less concerned about parsing what label 
to apply to each effect (e.g., direct or indirect effect, or 
interdependent or interrelated activity).
    As discussed in the proposed rule, the Services have applied the 
``but for'' test to determine causation for decades. That is, we have 
looked at the consequences of an action and used the causation standard 
of ``but for'' plus an element of foreseeability (i.e., reasonably 
certain to occur) to determine whether the consequence was caused by 
the action under consultation. In this final rule, we have added 
regulatory text to confirm that, by definition, ``but for'' causation 
means that the consequence in question would not occur if the proposed 
action did not go forward. This added regulatory language does not add 
a more stringent standard than what was applied already under our 
current ``but for'' causation, but is meant to clarify and reinforce 
the standard we currently implement and will do so in the future. 
Additionally, there are several relevant considerations where the 
proposed action is not the ``but for'' cause of another activity (not 
included in the proposed action) because the other activity would 
proceed in the absence of the proposed action due to the prospect of an 
alternative approach (e.g., if a Federal right-of-way (proposed action) 
is not granted, a private wind farm on non-federal lands (other 
activity) would still be developed through the building of a road on 
private lands (alternative approach)). In particular, the Services 
consider case-specific information including, but not limited to, the 
independent utility of the other activity and proposed action, the 
feasibility of the alternative approach and likelihood the alternative 
approach would be undertaken, the existence of plans relating to the 
activity and whether the plans indicate that an activity will move 
forward irrespective of the action agency's proposed action, and 
whether the same effects would occur as a result of the other activity 
in the absence of the proposed action. In other words, if the agency 
fails to take the proposed action and the activity would still occur, 
there is no ``but for'' causation. In that event, the activity would 
not be considered an effect of the action under consultation.
    Consequences to the species or critical habitat caused by the 
proposed action must also be reasonably certain to occur. The term 
``reasonably certain to occur'' is not a new or heightened standard, 
but it was not clearly defined or given any parameters in previous 
regulations. Experience has taught us that the failure to provide a 
definition and any parameters to the term ``reasonably certain to 
occur'' left the concept vague and occasionally produced determinations 
that were inconsistent or had the appearance of being too subjective. 
As such, there were sometimes disagreements between the Services and 
action agencies as to what constituted ``reasonably certain to occur.'' 
Our intention in these regulations is to provide a solid framework, 
with specific factors for both action agencies and the Services to 
evaluate, in order to determine whether a consequence is ``reasonably 
certain to occur.'' In addition, we added a regulatory requirement that 
this framework be reviewed and followed by both the action agency and 
the Services. See Sec.  402.17(c). When the Services write an 
incidental take statement for a biological opinion, under section 
7(b)(4)(iv) of the Act they can assign responsibility of specific terms 
and conditions of the incidental take statement to the Federal action 
agency, the applicant, or both taking into account their respective 
roles, authorities, and responsibilities. The Services have worked with 
Federal action agencies in the past, and will continue to do so into 
the future, to ensure that a reasonable and prudent measure assigned to 
a Federal action agency does not exceed the scope of a Federal action 
agency's authority.
    As discussed below in our discussion of changes to Sec.  402.17, we 
have clarified that for a consequence or an activity to be considered 
reasonably certain to occur, the determination must be based on clear 
and substantial information. The term ``clear and substantial'' is used 
to describe the nature of information needed to determine that a 
consequence or activity is reasonably certain to occur. By clear and 
substantial, we mean that there must be a firm basis to support a 
conclusion that a consequence of an action is reasonably certain to 
occur. The determination of a consequence to be reasonably certain to 
occur must be based on solid information and should not be based on 
speculation or conjecture. This added term also does not mean the 
nature of the information must support that a consequence must be 
guaranteed to occur, but rather, that it must have a degree of 
certitude.
    We revised Sec.  402.17 to help guide the determination of 
``reasonably certain to occur.'' The ``reasonably certain to occur'' 
determination applies to other

[[Page 44978]]

activities caused by (but not part of) the proposed action, activities 
considered under cumulative effects (as defined at Sec.  402.02), and 
to the consequences caused by the proposed action. However, it does not 
apply to the proposed action itself, which is presumed to occur as 
described. First, in Sec.  402.17(a), we discuss factors to consider 
when determining whether an activity is reasonably certain to occur for 
purposes of determining the effects of the action or which activities 
to include under Cumulative Effects. Second, we describe considerations 
for evaluating whether a consequence is reasonably certain to occur in 
Sec.  402.17(b). For further explanation, please see our discussion of 
Sec.  402.17, below.
    We also continue to emphasize that effects may occur beyond the 
proposed action's footprint. This concept was reflected in the proposed 
rule and the final definition states that effects may include 
consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the 
action.
    As discussed above, we articulated a two-part test for effects of 
the action that is consistent with our existing practice and prior 
interpretations. This test for determining effects includes effects 
resulting from actions previously referred to as ``interrelated or 
interdependent'' activities. In order for consequences of other 
activities caused by the proposed action to be considered effects of 
the action, both those activities and the consequences of those 
activities must satisfy the two-part test: They would not occur but for 
the proposed action and are reasonably certain to occur. As a result, 
when we discuss effects or effects of the action throughout the rest of 
this rule, we are referring only to those effects that satisfy the two-
part test. For further discussion of the application of the 
``reasonably certain to occur'' test to activities included within the 
definition of effects of the action, see our discussion of changes to 
proposed Sec.  402.17, below.
 Definition of Environmental Baseline
    We proposed a stand-alone definition for ``environmental baseline'' 
as referenced in the discussion above in the proposed revised 
definition for effects of the action.
    Environmental baseline was proposed to be defined to include the 
past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and 
other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of 
all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already 
undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of 
State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the 
consultation in process.
    In the proposed rule, we also sought comment on potential revisions 
to the definition of ``environmental baseline'' as it relates to 
ongoing Federal actions. The Services received numerous comments 
regarding the proposed definition of ``environmental baseline'' and the 
consideration of ongoing Federal actions.
    In response to these comments and upon further consideration, 
through this final rule, we are revising the definition of 
``environmental baseline'' to read as set out in the regulatory text at 
the end of this document.
    We revised the definition of environmental baseline to make it 
clear that ``environmental baseline'' is a separate consideration from 
the effects of the action. In practice, the environmental baseline 
should be used to compare the condition of the species and the 
designated critical habitat in the action area with and without the 
effects of the proposed action, which can inform the detailed 
evaluation of the effects of the action described in Sec.  402.14(g)(3) 
upon which the Services formulate their biological opinion.
    In addition, we added a sentence to clarify that the consequences 
of ongoing agency activities or existing agency facilities that are not 
within the agency's discretion to modify are included in the 
environmental baseline. This third sentence is specifically intended to 
help clarify environmental baseline issues that have caused confusion 
in the past, particularly with regard to impacts from ongoing agency 
activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the 
agency's discretion to modify.
    We added this third sentence because we concluded that it was 
necessary to explicitly answer the question as to whether ongoing 
consequences of past or ongoing activities or facilities should be 
attributed to the environmental baseline or to the effects of the 
action under consultation when the agency has no discretion to modify 
either those activities or facilities. The Courts and the Services have 
concluded that, in general, ongoing consequences attributable to 
ongoing activities and the existence of agency facilities are part of 
the environmental baseline when the action agency has no discretion to 
modify them. With respect to existing facilities, such as a dam, courts 
have recognized that effects from the existence of the dam can properly 
be considered a past and present impact included in the environmental 
baseline, particularly when the Federal agency lacks discretion to 
modify the dam. See, e.g., Friends of River v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries 
Serv., 293 F. Supp. 3d 1151, 1166 (E.D. Cal. 2018). Having the 
environmental baseline include the consequences from ongoing agency 
activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the 
agency's discretion to modify is supported by the Supreme Court's 
conclusion in National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 
551 U.S. 644, 667-71 (U.S. 2007) (``Home Builders''). In that case, the 
Court held that it was reasonable for the Services to narrow the 
application of section 7 to a Federal agency's discretionary actions 
because it made no sense to consult on actions over which the Federal 
agency has no discretionary involvement or control. It follows, then, 
that when a Federal agency has authority for managing or operating a 
dam, but lacks discretion to remove or modify the physical structure of 
the dam, the consequences from the physical presence of the dam in the 
river are appropriately placed in the environmental baseline and are 
not considered an effect of the action under consultation.
    We distinguish here between activities and facilities where the 
Federal agency has no discretion to modify and those discretionary 
activities, operations, or facilities that are part of the proposed 
action but for which no change is proposed. For example, a Federal 
agency in their proposed action may modify some of their ongoing, 
discretionary operations of a water project and keep other ongoing, 
discretionary operations the same. The resulting consultation on future 
operations analyzes the effects of all of the discretionary operations 
of the water project on the species and designated critical habitat as 
part of the effects of the action, even those operations that the 
Federal agency proposes to keep the same. We also note that the 
obligation is on the Federal action agency to propose actions for 
consultation and while they should not improperly piecemeal or segment 
portions of related actions, a request for consultation on one aspect 
of a Federal agency's exercise of discretion does not de facto pull in 
all of the possible discretionary actions or authorities of the Federal 
agency. This is a case-by-case specific analysis undertaken by the 
Services and the Federal action agency as needed during consultation.
    Attributing to the environmental baseline the ongoing consequences 
from activities or facilities that are not within the agency's 
discretion to modify does not mean that those consequences are ignored. 
As discussed in more detail below, the environmental baseline is a

[[Page 44979]]

description of the condition of the species or the designated critical 
habitat in the action area. To the extent ongoing consequences are 
beneficial or adverse to a species, the environmental baseline 
evaluations of the species or designated critical habitat will reflect 
the impact of those consequences and the effects of the action must be 
added to those impacts in the Services' jeopardy and adverse 
modification analysis.

Section 402.13--Deadline for Informal Consultation

    The Services sought comment on potentially establishing a 60-day 
deadline, subject to extension by mutual consent, for informal 
consultations. More specifically, we sought comment on (1) whether a 
deadline would be helpful in improving the timeliness of review; (2) 
the appropriate length for a deadline (if not 60 days); and (3) how to 
appropriately implement a deadline (e.g., to which portions of informal 
consultation the deadline should apply [e.g., technical assistance, 
response to requests for concurrence, etc.], when informal consultation 
begins, the ability to extend or ``pause the clock'' in certain 
circumstances, etc.).
    The Services received numerous comments regarding the establishment 
of a deadline for informal consultation. A summary of those comments 
and our responses are below at Summary of Comments and Recommendations. 
In response to these comments and upon further consideration, through 
this final rule, we are revising Sec.  402.13, Informal consultation, 
to read as set out in the regulatory text at the end of this document.
    These changes institute a new Sec.  402.13(c), which is a process 
framework for the Federal agency's written request for concurrence and 
the Service's response. The changes to the informal consultation 
process are limited to only the written request for concurrence and the 
Service's response. This preserves the flexibility in discussions and 
timing inherent in the portion of the informal consultation process 
that is intended to assist the Federal agency in determining whether 
formal consultation is required. In the new framework, we require in 
Sec.  402.13(c)(1) that the written request for our concurrence should 
contain information similar to that required in Sec.  402.14(c)(1) for 
formal consultation, but only at a level of detail sufficient for the 
Services to determine whether or not it concurs. Consistent with past 
practice, the Services determine whether the information provided by 
the Federal agency provides sufficient information upon which to make 
its determination whether to concur with Federal agency's request for 
concurrence. We anticipate that this level of detail will often be less 
than that required for the initiation of formal consultation and the 
evaluation of adverse effects to species and designated critical 
habitat. Second, we establish in Sec.  402.13(c)(2) a timeline for the 
written request and concurrence process. As stated in the new Sec.  
402.13(c)(2), upon receipt of an adequate request for concurrence from 
a Federal agency, the Services shall provide their written response 
within 60 days. The 60-day response period may be extended, with the 
mutual consent of the Federal agency (or its designated representative) 
and any applicant, for up to an additional 60 days, bringing the total 
potential timeframe for this written request and response process to 
120 days. The intent of the 60-day, and no more than 120-day, deadline 
is to increase regulatory certainty and timeliness for Federal agencies 
and applicants.
    The changes at Sec.  402.13(c) do not alter or apply to the 
Services' review of and response to biological assessments prepared for 
major construction activities, as outlined at Sec.  402.12. For those 
consultations, the response would be required within 30 days, as 
outlined at Sec.  402.12(j) and (k).

Section 402.14--Formal Consultation

    The Services proposed several amendments to Sec.  402.14. 
Consistent with the Services' existing practice, we proposed to revise 
Sec.  402.14(c) to clarify what is necessary to initiate formal 
consultation and to allow the Services to consider documents such as 
those prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to be considered as initiation packages, as 
long as they meet the requirements for initiating consultation. We also 
proposed to: (1) Revise portions of Sec.  402.14(g) that describe the 
Services' responsibilities during formal consultation; (2) revise Sec.  
402.14(h) to allow the Services to adopt all or part of a Federal 
agency's initiation package, or all or part of the Services' own 
analyses and findings that are required to issue a permit under section 
10(a) of the Act, in its biological opinion; and (3) add a new 
provision titled ``Expedited consultations'' at Sec.  402.14(l) to 
offer opportunities to streamline consultation, particularly for 
actions that have minimal adverse effects or predictable effects based 
on previous consultation experience.
    The Services received numerous comments related to our proposed 
amendments to Sec.  402.14, Formal consultation, as set forth at 83 FR 
35192, July 25, 2018. A summary of those comments and our responses are 
below at Summary of Comments and Recommendations.
    In response to these comments and upon further consideration, in 
this final rule, we are finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec.  
402.14(g)(2) and (4) and (l), and we are amending Sec.  402.14(c), 
(g)(8), and (h) to read as set out in the regulatory text at the end of 
this document.
    The Services are making a non-substantive edit to the proposed 
regulatory text at Sec.  402.14(c)(1)(iii). This non-substantive edit 
clarifies that the Services are referring to information about both the 
species and its habitat, including any designated critical habitat.
    The Services are also making edits to the proposed regulatory text 
at Sec.  402.14(g)(8) to simplify the text while maintaining the intent 
of the proposed regulatory revisions. More specifically, we are 
striking the proposed text that referenced ``specific'' plans and ``a 
clear, definite commitment of resources'' with respect to measures 
intended to avoid, minimize or, or offset the effects of an action. 
Instead, the Services are simplifying the regulatory text to indicate 
that such measures are considered like other portions of the action and 
do not require any additional demonstration of binding plans.
    The simplified regulatory text avoids potential confusion between 
the need to sufficiently describe measures a Federal agency is 
committing to implement as part of a proposed action to avoid, 
minimize, or offset effects pursuant to Sec.  402.14(c)(1), and how 
those measures are taken into consideration after consultation is 
initiated. Any type of action proposed by a Federal agency receives a 
presumption that it will occur, but it must also be described in 
sufficient detail that the Services can both understand the action and 
evaluate its adverse and beneficial effects. By eliminating the word 
``specific'' in Sec.  402.14(g)(8), we reinforce that an appropriate 
level of specificity regarding the description of measures included in 
the proposed action may be necessary to provide sufficient detail to 
assess the effects of the action on listed species and critical 
habitat. However, inclusion of measures to avoid, minimize, or offset 
adverse effects as part of the proposed action does not result in a 
requirement for an additional demonstration of binding plans. To 
simplify the regulatory text and improve clarity, we also eliminated 
the reference to ``a clear, definite commitment of resources.'' That 
change is not meant to imply that an

[[Page 44980]]

additional demonstration of a clear and definite commitment of 
resources, beyond the commitment to implement such measures as part of 
the proposed action, is required before the Services can take them into 
consideration. Rather, we intend the phrase ``do not require any 
additional demonstration of binding plans'' that is retained in Sec.  
402.14(g)(8) to reflect that demonstrations of resource commitments and 
other elements are not required before allowing the Services to take 
into account measures included in a proposed action to avoid, minimize, 
or offset adverse effects. Therefore, this final rule maintains the 
intent of the proposed revisions to Sec.  402.14(g)(8).
    The Services are also revising the proposed regulatory text at 
Sec.  402.14(h) by adding a new paragraph (h)(1)(ii); redesignating the 
existing (h)(1)(ii) and (iii) as (h)(1)(iii) and (iv), respectively; 
and making a non-substantive edit at Sec.  402.14(h)(4). New Sec.  
402.14(h)(1)(ii) clarifies that the biological opinion will also 
include a detailed discussion of the environmental baseline because a 
proper understanding of the environmental baseline is critical to our 
analysis of the effects of the action, as well as our determination as 
to whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its 
critical habitat. Inclusion of a detailed description of the 
environmental baseline is consistent with existing practice (see 
Services' 1998 Consultation Handbook at pp. 4-13 and 4-15) and, 
therefore, this requirement will not change how the Services prepare 
biological opinions.

Section 402.16--Reinitiation of Consultation

    We proposed two changes to this section. First, we proposed to 
remove the term ``formal'' from the title and text of this section to 
acknowledge that the requirement to reinitiate consultation applies to 
all section 7(a)(2) consultations. Second, we proposed to amend this 
section to address issues arising under the Ninth Circuit's decision in 
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service, 789 F.3d 
1075 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 293 (2016), by making 
non-substantive redesignations and then revising Sec.  402.16 by adding 
a new paragraph (b) to clarify that the duty to reinitiate does not 
apply to an existing programmatic land management plan prepared 
pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq., or the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 
U.S.C. 1600 et seq., when a new species is listed or new critical 
habitat is designated. In addition to seeking comment on the proposed 
revision to 50 CFR 402.16, we sought comment on whether to exempt other 
types of programmatic land or water management plans in addition to 
those prepared pursuant to FLPMA and NFMA, and on the proposed revision 
in light of the recently enacted Wildfire Suppression Funding and 
Forest Management Activities Act, H.R. 1625, Division O, which was 
included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018 
(``2018 Omnibus Act'').
    In the proposed revisions to Sec.  402.16, reinitiation of 
consultation would be required and would need to be requested by the 
Federal agency or by the Service. Moreover, an agency would not be 
required to reinitiate consultation after the approval of a land 
management plan prepared pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1712 or 16 U.S.C. 1604 
upon listing of a new species or designation of new critical habitat, 
provided that any authorized actions that may affect the newly listed 
species or designated critical habitat will be addressed through a 
separate action-specific consultation.
    The Services received numerous comments related to our proposed 
amendments to this section. Comments were generally evenly divided in 
support of and in opposition to the proposed Sec.  402.16(b), including 
whether we are precluded from expanding relief from reinitiation due to 
the 2018 Omnibus Act as well as to whether to extend the exemption to 
other types of plans. A summary of those comments and our responses are 
below at Summary of Comments and Recommendations.
    In response to these comments and upon further consideration, we 
revised Sec.  402.16, Reinitiation of consultation, to read as set out 
in the regulatory text at the end of this document.
    We modified the language at Sec.  402.16(a)(3) to correct the 
inadvertent failure of our proposed rule to reference the written 
concurrence process in this criterion for reinitiation of consultation. 
This criterion references the information and analysis the Services 
considered, including information submitted by the Federal agency and 
applicant, in the development of our biological opinion or written 
concurrence and not just the information contained within the 
biological opinion or written concurrence documents. The remaining 
three reinitiation criteria at Sec.  402.16(a)(1), (2), and (4) were 
unchanged. We also took this opportunity to clarify the meaning of the 
reference to the Service in the current and adopted, final version of 
Sec.  402.16(a) that reads, ``Reinitiation of consultation is required 
and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, . . 
.''. The reference to the Service in this language does not impose an 
affirmative obligation on the Service to reinitiate consultation if any 
of the criteria have been met. Rather, the reference here has always 
been interpreted by the Services to allow us to recommend reinitiation 
of consultation to the relevant Federal action agency if we have 
information that indicates reinitiation is warranted. It is ultimately 
the responsibility of the Federal action agency to reinitiate 
consultation with the relevant Service when warranted. The same holds 
true for initiation of consultation in the first instance. While the 
Services may recommend consultation, it is the Federal agency that must 
request initiation of consultation. See 50 CFR 402.14(a).
    In addition, we clarified that initiation of consultation shall not 
be required for land management plans prepared pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 
1712 or 16 U.S.C. 1604, upon listing of a new species or designation of 
new critical habitat, in certain specific circumstances, provided that 
any authorized actions that may affect the newly listed species or 
designated critical habitat will be addressed through a separate 
action-specific consultation. This exception to reinitiation of 
consultation shall not apply to those land management plans prepared 
pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604 if 15 years have passed since the date the 
agency adopted the land management plan and 5 years have passed since 
the enactment of Public Law 115-141 [March 23, 2018], or the date of 
the listing of a species or the designation of critical habitat, 
whichever is later.
    The language at Sec.  402.16(b) is revised from the proposed 
amendment to follow the time limitations imposed by Congress for the 
relief from reinitiation when a new species is listed or critical 
habitat designated for forest management plans prepared pursuant to 
NFMA. Because Congress did not address land management plans prepared 
pursuant to FLPMA in the 2018 Omnibus Act, the Services have determined 
that we may exempt any land management plan prepared pursuant to FLPMA 
from reinitiation when a new species is listed or critical habitat is 
designated as long as any action taken pursuant to the plan will be 
subject to its own section 7 consultation.

[[Page 44981]]

Section 402.17--Other Provisions

    We proposed to add a new Sec.  402.17 titled ``Other provisions.'' 
Within this new section, we proposed a new provision titled 
``Activities that are reasonably certain to occur,'' in order to 
clarify the application of the ``reasonably certain to occur'' standard 
referenced in Sec.  402.02 (defining effects of the action and 
cumulative effects). The proposed revisions are set out at 83 FR 35193, 
July 25, 2018.
    The Services received numerous comments related to the proposed 
provision, many of which stated the Services should further clarify the 
language of the provision. In response to these comments and upon 
further consideration, we revised Sec.  402.17 to read as set out in 
the regulatory text at the end of this document.
    The revisions to the language in Sec.  402.17 are intended to 
clarify several aspects of the process of determining whether an 
activity or consequence is ``reasonably certain to occur.''
    First, we clarified that for a consequence or an activity to be 
considered reasonably certain to occur, the determination must be based 
on clear and substantial information. The term ``clear and 
substantial'' is used to describe the nature of information needed to 
determine that a consequence or activity is reasonably certain to 
occur. We do not intend to change the statutory requirement that 
determinations under the Act are made based on ``best scientific and 
commercial data available.'' By clear and substantial, we mean that 
there must be a firm basis to support a conclusion that a consequence 
of an action is reasonably certain to occur. This term is not intended 
to require a certain numerical amount of data; rather, it is simply to 
illustrate that the determination of a consequence to be reasonably 
certain to occur must be based on solid information. This added term 
also does not mean the nature of the information must support that a 
consequence is guaranteed to occur, but must have a degree of 
certitude.
    To be clear, these regulations do not amend a Federal agency's 
obligation under the Act's section 7(a)(2); nor do they change the 
regulatory standard that action agencies must ``insure'' that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. See H.R. Conference Report 96-697 
(1979) (confirming section 7(a)(2) requires all federal agencies to 
ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize endangered or 
threatened species or result in the adverse modification of critical 
habitat).
    Second, in response to requests made in public comments for 
clarification of the factors to consider, we revised Sec.  402.17(a)(1) 
and (2) to further elaborate what we meant in the original proposed 
versions of those factors. In particular, we revised Sec.  402.17(a)(1) 
to describe that the Services would include past experience with 
``activities that have resulted from actions that are similar in scope, 
nature, and magnitude to the proposed action'' when considering whether 
an activity might be reasonably certain to occur as a result of the 
proposed action under consultation. This is intended to capture the 
important knowledge developed by the action agencies and Services over 
their decades of consultation experience. We also made minor revisions 
to clarify Sec.  402.17(a)(2). The proposed language used the phrase 
``any existing relevant plans'' but did not reference to the activity 
itself. We recognize that this language may have been confusing and 
vague for readers and therefore have modified the text to clarify that 
we are referencing plans specific to that activity, not general plans 
that may contemplate a variety of activities or uses in an area.
    Finally, we added a new paragraph to Sec.  402.17 to emphasize 
other considerations that are important and relevant when reviewing 
whether a consequence is also reasonably certain to occur. These are 
not exhaustive, new, or more stringent factors than what we have used 
in the past to determine the likelihood of a consequence occurring nor 
are they meant to imply that time, distance, or multiple steps 
inherently make a consequence not reasonably certain to occur. See 
Riverside Irrigation v. Andrews, 758 F2d 508 (10th Cir. 1985) 
(upholding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' determination that it 
properly reviewed an effect downstream from the footprint of the 
action).
    Each consultation will have its own set of evaluations and will 
depend on the underlying factors unique to that consultation. For 
example, a Federal agency is consulting on the permitting of 
installation of an outfall pipe. A secondary, connecting pipe owned by 
a third party is to be installed and would not occur ``but for'' the 
proposed outfall pipe, and existing plans for the connecting pipe make 
it reasonably certain to occur. Under our revised definition for 
effects of the action, any consequences to listed species or critical 
habitat caused by the secondary pipe would be considered to fall within 
the effects of the agency action. As the rule recognizes, however, 
there are situations, such as when consequences are so remote in time 
or location, or are only reached following a lengthy causal chain of 
events, that the consequences would not be considered reasonably 
certain to occur.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

Section 402.02--Definitions

Definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification
    We revised the definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' by adding the phrase ``as a whole'' to the first 
sentence and removing the second sentence of the prior definition. The 
Act requires Federal agencies, in consultation with and with the 
assistance of the Secretaries, to insure that their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat of such species. In 1986, the Services established 
a definition for ``destruction or adverse modification'' (51 FR 19926, 
June 3, 1986, codified at 50 CFR 402.02) that was found to be invalid 
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth (2001) and Ninth (2004) 
Circuits. In 2016, we revised the definition, in part in response to 
these court rulings (81 FR 7214; February 11, 2016).
    In this final rule, we have further clarified the definition. The 
addition of the phrase ``as a whole'' to the first sentence reflects 
existing practice and the Services' longstanding interpretation that 
the final destruction or adverse modification determination is made at 
the scale of the entire critical habitat designation. The deletion of 
the second sentence removes language that is redundant and has caused 
confusion about the meaning of the regulation. These revisions are 
unchanged from the proposed rule, and further explanation of their 
background and rationale is provided in the preamble text of the 
proposed rule.
Comments on the Destruction and Adverse Modification Definition
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with defining ``destruction 
or adverse modification'' at all, saying that such a definition was 
unnecessary and that we should rely only on the statutory language. 
Others suggested creating separate definitions for ``destruction'' and 
``adverse modification,'' and suggested that not doing so is an 
impermissible interpretation of the Act.
    Response: The term ``destruction or adverse modification'' has been 
defined by regulation since 1978. We continue to believe it is 
appropriate and within

[[Page 44982]]

the Services' authority to define this term and believe that this 
revision to that definition will improve the clarity and consistency in 
the application of these concepts. Furthermore, the Services have 
discretion to issue a regulatory interpretation of the statutory phrase 
``destruction or adverse modification'' and are not required to break 
such a phrase into separate definitions of its individual words. The 
Services believe that the inquiry is most usefully and appropriately 
defined by the general standard in our definition, and that ultimately 
the determination focuses on how the agency action affects the value of 
the critical habitat for the conservation of the species, regardless of 
whether the contemplated effects constitute ``destruction'' or 
``adverse modification'' of critical habitat.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the definition should not 
include the phrase ``or indirect'' because it would allow for 
``speculative actions to be used as determining factors.''
    Response: The final rule does not alter the use of the phrase ``or 
indirect'' which has been in all prior versions of this definition. In 
addition, we note that the phrase has long been included in, and 
continues to be used in, the definitions of ``jeopardize the continued 
existence of'' and ``action area.'' We continue to believe its 
inclusion is appropriate in this context and takes into account that 
some actions may affect critical habitat indirectly. The Services use 
the best scientific and commercial data available and do not rely upon 
speculation in determining the effects of a proposed action or in 
section 7(a)(2) ``destruction or adverse modification'' determinations. 
The standards for determining effects of a proposed action are further 
discussed above under Definition of ``Effects of the Action''.
    Comment: One commenter said that a lead agency should defer to 
cooperating agencies in evaluating potential impacts on critical 
habitat when the cooperating agencies have jurisdiction over the area 
being analyzed.
    Response: The term ``cooperating agency'' arises in the NEPA 
context. Generally speaking, the lead agency under NEPA may also be a 
section 7 action agency under the Act. Cooperating agencies can be a 
valuable source of scientific and other information relevant to a 
consultation and may play a role in section 7 consultation. The Federal 
action agency, however, remains ultimately responsible for its action 
under section 7. Under 50 CFR 402.07, where there are multiple Federal 
agencies involved in a particular action, a lead agency may be 
designated to fulfill the consultation and conference responsibilities. 
The other Federal agencies can assist the lead Federal agency in 
gathering relevant information and analyzing effects. The determination 
of the appropriate lead agency can take into account factors including 
their relative expertise with respect to the environmental effects of 
the action.
    Comment: Some commenters said that the revised definition creates 
uncertainty and potential lack of consistency regarding when formal or 
informal consultation is required, or that it revised the triggers for 
initiating consultation.
    Response: The revisions to this definition should not create any 
additional uncertainty about when formal or informal consultation is 
required, because these revisions do not change the obligations of 
action agencies to consult or the circumstances in which consultation 
must be initiated.
    Comment: Several commenters offered their own, alternative re-
definitions of the phrase ``destruction or adverse modification.'' For 
example, one commenter suggested the phrase should be defined to mean 
``a direct or indirect alteration caused by the proposed action that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.''
    Response: We recognize that there could be more than one 
permissible, reasonable interpretation of this phrase. The definition 
we have adopted is an incremental change that incorporates longstanding 
approaches, modified from the 2016 definition (81 FR 7214; February 11, 
2016) to improve clarity and consistency of application. Our adopted 
definition also has the value of being succinct. We do not view the 
proposed alternative definitions as improving upon clarity, and they 
may also contain unnecessary provisions or incorporate additional 
terminology that could itself be subject to multiple or inappropriate 
meanings.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the definition should 
clarify that the only valid consideration in making a ``destruction or 
adverse modification'' determination is the impact of an action on the 
continued survival of the species, and that it should not take into 
consideration the ability of the species to recover. Conversely, some 
commenters said the definition improperly devalues or neglects 
recovery.
    Response: Our definition focuses on the value of the affected 
habitat for ``conservation,'' a term that is defined by statute as 
implicating recovery (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). ``Conservation'' is the 
appropriate focus because critical habitat designations are focused by 
statute on areas or features ``essential to the conservation of the 
species'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5); see also 50 CFR 402.02 (defining 
``recovery'')).
    Comment: Several commenters said that the Services should do more 
to identify how they assess the value of critical habitat for the 
conservation of a species. They recommend measures such as identifying 
specific metrics of conservation value, providing guidance on the use 
of recovery or planning tools to identify targets for preservation or 
restoration, and defining de minimis thresholds or standardized project 
modifications that could be applied to recurring categories of projects 
in order to avoid triggering a ``destruction or adverse modification'' 
determination.
    Response: As noted in the proposed rule preamble, the value of 
critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species is described 
primarily through the critical habitat designation itself. That 
designation itself will identify and describe, in occupied habitat, 
``physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Similarly, 
designations of any unoccupied habitat will describe the reasons that 
such areas have been determined to be ``essential for the conservation 
of the species'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(ii)). Critical habitat 
designations, recovery plans, and related information often provide 
additional and specific discussions regarding the role and quality of 
the physical or biological features and their distribution across the 
critical habitat in supporting the recovery of the listed species.
    Regarding concepts such as defining metrics of value or pre-defined 
de minimis standards, the Services often assist action agencies in 
developing conservation measures during consultation that would work to 
reduce or minimize project impacts to critical habitat. The final rule 
contains provisions on programmatic consultations that could facilitate 
establishing and applying broadly applicable standards or guidelines 
based on recurring categories of actions whose effects can be 
understood and anticipated in advance. However, predefined metrics, 
standards, and thresholds for categories of action in many instances 
are not feasible, given variations in the actions, their circumstances 
and setting, and evolving scientific knowledge.

[[Page 44983]]

Comments on the Addition of the Phrase ``As a Whole''
    Comment: Some comments supported the change, saying that the 
addition of this phrase was consistent with existing Services practice 
and guidance, or said the addition improved the definition and 
clarified the appropriate scale at which the ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' determination applies. Some commenters noted that the 
addition helps place the inquiry in its proper functional context and 
observed that alteration of critical habitat is not necessarily a per 
se adverse modification.
    Response: We agree that the addition of ``as a whole'' helps 
clarify the application of the definition, without changing its meaning 
or altering current policy and practice.
    Comment: One commenter said that the addition of ``as a whole'' 
could cause confusion as to whether it referred to the critical habitat 
or the species.
    Response: The phrase ``as a whole'' is intended to apply to the 
critical habitat designation, not to the phrase ``a species.''
    Comment: Some commenters asserted that adding ``as a whole'' to the 
definition meant that small losses would no longer be considered 
``destruction or adverse modification'' because they would be viewed as 
small compared to the ``whole'' designation. Some of these comments 
asserted that under this definition, ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' would only be found if an action impacted the entire 
critical habitat designation or a large area of it. Some also noted 
that effects in small areas can have biological significance (e.g., a 
migration corridor), and that impacts in a small area could be 
significant to a small, local population or important local habitat 
features.
    Response: The addition of ``as a whole'' clarifies but does not 
change the Services' approach to assessing critical habitat impacts, as 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the 2016 final 
rule on destruction and adverse modification (81 FR 7214; February 11, 
2016). In that 2016 rule, we elected not to add this phrase, but made 
clear that the phrase did describe and reflect the appropriate scale of 
``destruction or adverse modification'' determinations. Consistent with 
longstanding practice and guidance, the Services must place impacts to 
critical habitat into the context of the overall designation to 
determine if the overall value of the critical habitat is likely to be 
appreciably reduced. The Services agree that it would not be 
appropriate to mask the significance of localized effects of the action 
by only considering the larger scale of the whole designation and not 
considering the significance of any effects that are occurring at 
smaller scales (see, e.g., Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1075). The 
revision to the definition does not imply, require, or recommend 
discounting or ignoring the potential significance of more local 
impacts. Such local impacts could be significant, for instance, where a 
smaller affected area of the overall habitat is important in its 
ability to support the conservation of a species (e.g., a primary 
breeding site). Thus, the size or proportion of the affected area is 
not determinative; impacts to a smaller area may in some cases result 
in a determination of destruction or adverse modification, while 
impacts to a large geographic area will not always result in such a 
finding.
    Comment: Some comments expressed concern that the ``as a whole'' 
language, along with the preamble interpretation of ``appreciably 
diminish,'' undermined conservation because it would allow more 
piecemeal, incremental losses that over time would add up cumulatively 
to significant losses or fragmentation (referred to by many comments as 
``death by a thousand cuts''). One commenter further expressed concern 
that such accumulated losses would add to the regulatory burden faced 
by private landowners with habitat on their lands. Some commenters 
asserted that the ``as a whole'' language would be difficult or 
burdensome to implement, because the Services lacked sufficient 
capacity to track or aggregate losses over time and space.
    Response: As already noted, the revisions to the definition will 
not reduce or alter how the Services consider the aggregated effects of 
smaller changes to critical habitat. It should be emphasized that the 
revisions to this definition also do not alter or impose any additional 
burdens on action agencies or applicants to provide information on the 
nature of the proposed action or that action's effects on critical 
habitat or listed species. The regulations require the Services' 
biological opinion to assess the status of the critical habitat 
(including threats and trends), the environmental baseline of the 
action area, and cumulative effects. The Services' summary of the 
status of the affected species or critical habitat considers the 
historical and past impacts of activities across time and space. The 
effects of any particular action are thus evaluated in the context of 
this assessment, which incorporates the effects of all current and 
previous actions. This avoids situations where each individual action 
is viewed as causing only relatively minor adverse effects but, over 
time, the aggregated effects of these actions would erode the 
conservation value of the critical habitat.
    In this final rule, we are also clarifying the text at Sec.  
402.14(g)(4) regarding status of the species and critical habitat to 
better articulate how the Services formulate their opinion as to 
whether an action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. This clarification will help ensure the ``incremental 
losses'' described by the commenters are appropriately considered in 
our jeopardy and destruction or adverse modification determinations.
    The Services also make use of tracking mechanisms and tools to help 
track the effects of multiple agency actions. The Services have long 
recognized that tracking the effects of successive activities and 
projects is a significant challenge and continue to prioritize 
improvement of the methods for doing so. We also note that the use of 
programmatic consultations, as addressed elsewhere in this rule, can 
help with this challenge by encouraging consultation at a broad scale 
across geographic regions and programs encompassing multiple activities 
and actions. Finally, in response to concerns that this change would 
impose additional burdens on private landowners, the Services remind 
the public that critical habitat designation creates no 
responsibilities for the landowner unless the landowner proposes an 
activity that includes Federal funding or authorization of a type that 
triggers consultation. Otherwise, the designation of critical habitat 
requires no changes to the landowner's use or management of their land.
    Comment: Some commenters said that adding the phrase ``as a whole'' 
would make application of the definition more subjective and less 
consistent.
    Response: The comment appears to be motivated by the belief that 
any adverse effect to critical habitat should be considered, per se, 
``destruction or adverse modification,'' and that the change introduces 
a new element of subjectivity. We do not agree. As with under the prior 
definition, the Services are always required to exercise judgment and 
apply scientific expertise when making the ultimate determination as to 
whether adverse effects rise to the level of ``destruction or adverse 
modification.''

[[Page 44984]]

    Comment: Some commenters said that this change would impermissibly 
render the definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' too 
similar or the same as the definition of ``jeopardize the continued 
existence of,'' while the statute intends them to have different 
meanings. Some also said that this addition conflicted with case law 
stating that the two phrases have distinct meanings.
    Response: The Services do not agree that the addition of ``as a 
whole'' leads to improper conflation of the meanings of ``jeopardize 
the continued existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse 
modification.'' The terms ``destruction or adverse modification'' and 
``jeopardize the continued existence of'' have long been recognized to 
have distinct meanings yet implicate overlapping considerations in 
their application. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Service, 245 F.3d 434, 441 (5th Cir. 2001); Greenpeace v. National 
Marine Fisheries Serv., 55 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1265 (W.D. Wash.1999); 
Conservation Council for Hawai`i v. Babbitt, 2 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1287 (D. 
Haw. 1998). The phrase ``jeopardize the continued existence of'' 
focuses directly on the species' survival and recovery, while the 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' is focused first 
on the critical habitat itself, and then considers how alteration of 
that habitat affects the ``conservation'' value of critical habitat. 
Thus, the terms ``jeopardize the continued existence of'' and 
``destruction or adverse modification'' involve overlapping but 
distinct considerations. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 
245 F.3d 434, 441 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting that the critical habitat 
analysis is more directly focused on the effects on the designated 
habitat and has a ``more attenuated'' relationship to the survival and 
recovery of the species than the ``jeopardize'' analysis).
    Comment: Several commenters provided arguments or recommendations 
regarding the geographic scale at which ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' determinations should focus and asserted that the ``as a 
whole'' was not necessarily the right scale. One commenter said the 
appropriate scale was the critical habitat unit or larger, especially 
for wide-ranging species. Some commenters said that the ``as a whole'' 
language was inappropriate because the appropriate geographic scale for 
assessing ``destruction or adverse modification'' was a scientific 
question. Similarly, one comment asserted the Services must use a 
``biologically meaningful'' scale. A group of State governors 
questioned how scale would be treated when there was a portion of 
critical habitat in one State that was geographically unconnected to 
critical habitat in other States.
    Response: The use of the phrase ``as a whole'' is not solely meant 
to establish a geographic scale for ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' determinations. The phrase applies to assessing the 
value of the whole designation for conservation of the species. Effects 
at a smaller scale that could be significant to the value of the 
critical habitat designation will be considered. As the preamble to the 
proposed rule notes, ``the Services must [then] place those impacts in 
context of the designation to determine if the overall value of the 
critical habitat is likely to be reduced'' (83 FR 35178, July 25, 2018, 
p. 83 FR 35180). Thus, while the destruction or adverse modification 
analysis will consider the nature and significance of effects that 
occur at a smaller scale than the whole designation, the ultimate 
determination applies to the value of the critical habitat designation 
as a whole.
    Comment: One commenter said that the addition of ``as a whole'' was 
inconsistent with the following language in the 1998 Consultation 
Handbook: ``The consultation or conference focuses on the entire 
critical habitat area designated unless the critical habitat rule 
identifies another basis for analysis, such as discrete units and/or 
groups of units necessary for different life cycle phases, units 
representing distinctive habitat characteristics or gene pools, or 
units fulfilling essential geographic distribution requirements.'' See 
1998 Consultation Handbook at p. 4-42.
    Response: The revised definition is not inconsistent with the 
quoted 1998 Consultation Handbook guidance. As we stated in our 
preamble to the proposed rule, under the revised definition, ``if a 
particular project would cause adverse effects to a portion of critical 
habitat, the Services must place those impacts in context of the 
designation to determine if the overall value of the critical habitat 
is likely to be reduced. This could occur where, for example, a smaller 
affected area of habitat is particularly important in its ability to 
support the conservation of a species (e.g., a primary breeding site). 
Thus, the size or proportion of the affected area is not determinative; 
impacts to a smaller area may in some cases result in a determination 
of destruction or adverse modification, while impacts to a large 
geographic area will not always result in such a finding'' (83 FR 
35178, July 25, 2018, p. 83 FR 35180). In other words, it may be 
appropriate to focus on a unit of analysis that is smaller than the 
entire designation, but it would not be appropriate to conclude the 
analysis without relating the result of the alterations at that scale 
back to the listed entity, which is the designation ``as a whole,'' in 
order to assess whether the value of that designation to the 
conservation of a listed species is appreciably diminished.
    Comment: Some commenters disagreed with the addition of ``as a 
whole'' because they said it conflicted with the plain language of the 
statute. In particular, some asserted that, by statute, critical 
habitat is ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' They 
reason that, accordingly, any adverse effect is therefore per se 
``destruction or adverse modification'' since it is the loss or 
reduction of something that is ``essential.'' Some of these commenters 
also focused similar criticism on the preamble discussion of the phrase 
``appreciably diminish,'' as discussed further below.
    Response: The Services do not agree that any adverse effect to 
critical habitat is per se ``destruction or adverse modification,'' a 
subject further discussed in the discussion of ``appreciably diminish'' 
in the preamble to the proposed rule and the discussion of comments on 
that preamble provided below. Nor do the Services agree that the use of 
the term ``essential to the conservation of the species'' in the Act's 
definition of critical habitat requires such an interpretation. The 
phrase ``essential to the conservation of the species'' guides which 
areas will be designated but does not require that every alteration of 
the designated critical habitat is prohibited by the statute. Just as 
the determination of jeopardy under section 7(a)(2) of the Act is made 
at the scale of the entire listed entity, a determination of 
destruction or adverse modification must ultimately consider the 
diminishment to the value for conservation at the scale of the entire 
critical habitat designation. As the 1998 Consultation Handbook states, 
adverse effects on elements or segments of critical habitat ``generally 
do not result in jeopardy or adverse modification determinations unless 
that loss, when added to the environmental baseline, is likely to 
result in significant adverse effects throughout the species' range, or 
appreciably diminish the ability of the critical habitat to satisfy 
essential requirements of the species.'' See 1998 Consultation Handbook 
at p. 4-36. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held 
that ``a determination that critical habitat would be destroyed was 
thus not inconsistent with [a]

[[Page 44985]]

finding of no `adverse modification.' '' See also Butte Envir. Council 
v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 620 F.3d 936, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2010).

Deletion of the Second Sentence

    Comment: Some commenters claimed that removal of the sentence was 
unnecessary, and that doing so would eliminate important guidance 
embedded in the definition for appropriate factors to consider in the 
destruction or adverse modification analysis. Some suggested removing 
the provision about ``preclusion or delay'' of features, while keeping 
the remainder. One commenter suggested keeping the second sentence and 
expanding it to include additional language about cumulative loss of 
habitat required for recruitment. However, other commenters agreed with 
removing the second sentence, saying it was duplicative of the content 
of the first sentence, was vague and confusing, or that it contained 
provisions that overstepped the Services' authority. One commenter 
stated that removal of the second sentence will help place the focus on 
whether or not a project would ``appreciably diminish'' the value of 
critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of the species.
    Response: This revision was made because the second sentence of the 
definition adopted in the 2016 final rule (81 FR 7214; February 11, 
2016) has caused controversy among the public and many stakeholders. 
The revised definition streamlines and simplifies the definition. We 
agree with the commenters who stated that the second sentence was 
unnecessary--it had attempted to elaborate upon meanings that are 
already included within the first sentence. We also agree with the 
commenters who said that removing the second sentence will 
appropriately focus attention on the operative first sentence, which 
states that in all cases, the analysis of destruction or adverse 
modification must address whether the proposed action will result in an 
``alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.''
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that removal of the second 
sentence meant that the Services were stating that a destruction or 
adverse modification determination must always focus only on existing 
features, or that the Services intended to downplay the fact that some 
designated habitat may be governed by dynamic natural processes or be 
degraded and in need of improvement or restoration to recover a 
species. Such commenters also pointed out that species' habitat use and 
distribution can also be dynamic and change over time. Some commenters 
similarly asserted that this change improperly downgraded the 
importance of unoccupied critical habitat for recovery or asserted that 
the revision showed the Services were lessening their commitment to 
habitat improvement and recovery efforts.
    Response: As already noted, the deletion of the second sentence was 
meant to clarify and simplify the definition, but not to change the 
Services' current practice and interpretation regarding the 
applicability of the definition. Nor does the change mean that the 
recovery role of unoccupied critical habitat will not be considered in 
destruction or adverse modification determinations. As noted in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, the intended purpose of the language 
about precluding or delaying ``development of such features'' was to 
acknowledge ``that some important physical or biological features may 
not be present or are present in a sub- optimal quantity or quality. 
This could occur where, for example, the habitat has been degraded by 
human activity or is part of an ecosystem adapted to a particular 
natural disturbance (e.g., fire or flooding), which does not constantly 
occur but is likely to recur.'' See also 79 FR 27060, May 12, 2014, p. 
27061. Nor do the revisions mean that the Services are lessening their 
commitment to programs and efforts designed to bring about improvements 
to critical habitat.
    Comment: In contrast to commenters who opposed removing the second 
sentence, some commenters favored the removal of the second sentence 
because it would remove the phrase ``preclude or significantly delay 
development of such features.'' Some asserted this phrase was confusing 
or could lead to inconsistent or speculative application of the 
definition; others said that this phrase overstepped the Services' 
statutory authority and that ``destruction or adverse modification'' 
had to focus on existing features and could not be based on the 
conclusion that an action would ``preclude or significantly delay'' the 
development of such features. Some of these commenters also disputed 
language in the preamble of the proposed rule that they said indicated 
that the Services would improperly consider potential changes to 
critical habitat in making ``destruction or adverse modification'' 
determinations, rather than focusing solely on existing features.
    Response: The Services agree that the second sentence was 
unnecessary and that its removal will simplify and clarify the 
definition. The Services agree that it is important in any destruction 
or adverse modification assessment to focus on adverse effects to 
features that are currently present in the habitat, particularly where 
those features were the basis for its designation. However, as noted in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, there may also be circumstances 
where, within some areas of designated critical habitat at the time of 
consultation, ``some important physical or biological features may not 
be present or are present in a sub-optimal quantity or quality. This 
could occur when, for example, the habitat has been degraded by human 
activity or is part of an ecosystem adapted to a particular natural 
disturbance (e.g., fire or flooding), which does not constantly occur 
but is likely to recur'' (79 FR 27060, May 12, 2014, p. 27061). The 
extent to which the proposed action is anticipated to impact the 
development of such features is a relevant consideration for the 
Services' critical habitat analysis. The Services reaffirm their 
longstanding practice that any destruction or adverse modification 
determination must be grounded in the best scientific and commercial 
data available and should not be based upon speculation.
Appreciably Diminish
    In order to further clarify application of the definition of 
``destruction or adverse modification,'' the preamble to the proposed 
rule discussed the term ``appreciably diminish.'' The proposed rule did 
not contain any revisions to regulatory text defining this phrase or 
changing how it is used in the regulations. The preamble discussion was 
thus not intended to provide a new or changed interpretation of the 
Act's requirements, but instead was intended to help clarify how the 
Services apply the term ``appreciably diminish'' and to discuss some 
alternative interpretations that the Services do not believe correctly 
reflect the requirements of the statute or the Services' regulations. 
Below is discussion of comments received on this proposed rule preamble 
discussion of ``appreciably diminish,'' as well as related comments on 
the preamble discussion of associated topics of ``baseline jeopardy'' 
and ``tipping point.''
    Comment: A number of commenters expressed agreement with this 
section of the preamble, and the Services' interpretation that not 
every adverse effect to critical habitat constitutes ``destruction or 
adverse modification'' (and relatedly, that not every adverse effect to 
a species ``jeopardizes the continued existence of'' a listed species). 
Some commenters noted that this interpretation comports with case

[[Page 44986]]

law holding that a finding of adverse effects on critical habitat do 
not automatically require a determination of ``destruction or adverse 
modification,'' such as Butte Env. Council, 620 F.3d 936, 948 (9th Cir. 
2010).
    Response: We appreciate that these commenters found this preamble 
discussion helpful.
    Comment: Some commenters criticized the preamble language as 
creating too broad of a standard. Those commenters asserted that the 
preamble language implied that any effect, as long as it could be 
measured, could trigger an adverse modification opinion. For example, 
one commenter asserted that the Services were lowering the standard so 
that ``any measurable or recognizable effect'' on critical habitat 
would be considered destruction or adverse modification.
    Response: It was not our intention to imply, or state in any 
manner, that any effect on critical habitat that can be measured would 
amount to adverse modification of critical habitat. To the contrary, 
our experience with consultations has demonstrated that the vast 
majority of consultations that involved an action with adverse effects 
do not amount to a determination of adverse modification of critical 
habitat.
    We believe some of the confusion expressed by these comments can be 
alleviated by providing more explanation of where in the consultation 
process the ``appreciably diminish'' concept comes into play. The 
consultation process sets up a multiple-stage evaluation process of 
effects to critical habitat. The first inquiry--even before 
consultation begins--is whether any effect of an action ``may affect'' 
critical habitat. In order to determine if there is an effect, of 
course, it would have to be something that can be described or 
detected. The second consideration, then, would be whether that effect 
has an adverse effect on the critical habitat within the action area. 
To make that determination, the effect would need to be capable of 
being evaluated, in addition to being detected or described (see 1998 
Consultation Handbook at pp. 3-12-3-13 (noting that ``insignificant'' 
effects will not even trigger formal consultation, and that at this 
step, the evaluation is made of whether a person would ``be able to 
meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate'' the effects)). The finding 
that an effect is adverse at the action-area scale does not mean that 
it has met the section 7(a)(2) threshold of ``destruction or adverse 
modification''; rather, that is a determination that simply informs 
whether formal consultation is required at all. Therefore, an adverse 
effect is not, by definition, the equivalent of ``destruction or 
adverse modification,'' and further examination of the effect is 
necessary. As noted above, courts have also endorsed this view; see, 
e.g., Butte Envtl. Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 620 F.3d 936, 
947-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that ``a determination that critical 
habitat would be destroyed was thus not inconsistent with [a] finding 
of no `adverse modification' '').
    After effects are determined to be adverse at the action-area 
scale, they are analyzed with regard to the critical habitat as a 
whole. That is, the Services look at the adverse effects and evaluate 
their impacts when added to the environmental baseline and cumulative 
effects on the value of the critical habitat for the conservation of 
the species, taking into account the total and full extent as described 
in the designation, not just in the action area. It is at this point 
that the Services look to whether the effects diminish the role of the 
entire critical habitat designation. As discussed further above in our 
discussion of the phrase ``as a whole,'' the Services must place 
impacts to critical habitat into the context of the overall designation 
to determine if the overall value of the critical habitat is likely to 
be reduced.
    Even if it is determined that the effects appear likely to diminish 
the value of the critical habitat, a determination of ``destruction or 
adverse modification'' requires more than adverse effects that can be 
measured and described. At this stage in the consultation's multi-
staged evaluations, the Services will need to evaluate the adverse 
effects to determine if the adverse effects when added to the 
environmental baseline and cumulative effects will diminish the 
conservation value of the critical habitat in such a considerable way 
that the overall value of the entire critical habitat designation to 
the conservation of the species is appreciably diminished. It is only 
when adverse effects from a proposed action rise to this considerable 
level that the ultimate conclusion of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' of critical habitat can be reached.
    Comment: Several commenters suggest that in addition to defining 
``destruction or adverse modification,'' the Services should adopt a 
new regulatory definition of ``appreciably diminish.'' For example, one 
comment suggests the definition should read ``means to cause a 
reasonably certain reduction or diminishment, beyond baseline 
conditions, that constitutes a considerable or material reduction in 
the likelihood of survival and recovery.''
    Response: The Services believe our revised definition of 
``destruction or adverse modification'' will be clearer than before, 
while retaining continuity by keeping important language from prior 
versions of the definition. We do not think the various proposed 
definitions for ``appreciably diminish'' would improve upon the 
``destruction or adverse modification'' definition, and we conclude 
they would themselves introduce additional undefined, ambiguous 
terminology that would not likely improve the clarity of the definition 
or the consistency of its application.
    Comment: Some commenters suggest the Services state in rule text or 
preamble that ``appreciably diminish'' should be defined as it was in 
the 1998 Consultation Handbook: ``to considerably reduce the capability 
of designated or proposed critical habitat to satisfy requirements 
essential to both the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' Some 
commenters further assert that the Services should disavow language in 
the 2016 final rule preamble (81 FR 7214; February 11, 2016) to the 
effect that ``considerably'' means ``worthy of consideration'' and that 
it applies where the Services ``can recognize or grasp the quality, 
significance, magnitude, or worth of the reduction in the value of'' 
critical habitat. They assert this language is too broad and gives the 
Services too much discretion or will cause the Services to find 
``destruction or adverse modification'' in inappropriate circumstances. 
One commenter notes that some courts have affirmed the 1998 
Consultation Handbook definition and held the term ``appreciably'' 
means ``considerable'' or ``material.'' See, e.g., Pac. Coast Feds. of 
Fishermen's Assn's v. Gutierrez, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1209 (E.D. Cal. 
2008); Forest Guardians v. Veneman, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1092 (D. 
Ariz. 2005).
    Response: We believe the interpretation provided in our proposed 
rule preamble and as described above in detail is consistent with the 
guidance provided in the 1998 Consultation Handbook and the language 
used in the 2016 final rule (81 FR 7214; February 11, 2016). The 
preamble language in the draft rule did not seek to raise or lower the 
bar for making a finding of destruction or adverse modification. As 
with the 2016 definition and prior practice on the part of the 
Services, and as discussed above, destruction or adverse modification 
is more than a noticeable or measurable change. As we have detailed 
above, in order to trigger adverse modification, there must be an 
alteration that appreciably diminishes

[[Page 44987]]

the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a 
listed species.
    Comment: Some comments sought for the Services to develop a more 
exact or quantifiable method of determining destruction or adverse 
modification. One commenter requested that the Services develop 
regulations setting forth quantifiable ``statistical tools appropriate 
for the attribute of interest'' to guide such determinations, based on 
``defensible science that leads to reliable knowledge in quantifying 
the impacts of proposed or extant alterations related to habitat or 
populations of listed species.''
    Response: Where appropriate, the Services use statistical and 
quantifiable methods to support determinations of ``destruction or 
adverse modification'' under the ``appreciably diminish'' standard, but 
the best scientific and commercial data available often does not 
support this degree of precision. As such, the Services are required to 
apply the statute and regulations, and reach a conclusion even where 
such data and methods are not available.
    Comment: Some commenters asserted that the preamble discussion of 
``appreciably diminish'' stated an interpretation that was inconsistent 
with the statute, insufficiently protective of critical habitat, and 
would make the bar too high for making findings of ``destruction or 
adverse modification.'' Many of these comments linked the ``appreciably 
diminish'' language in the preamble with the ``as a whole'' change to 
the first sentence of the definition and concluded that these operated 
together to raise the tolerance for incremental and cumulative losses 
that would over time degrade critical habitat and undermine 
conservation. Thus, some of these comments are also addressed above in 
the discussion of ``as a whole.'' These comments often also raise 
issues about the concepts of ``tipping point'' and ``baseline 
jeopardy'' addressed further below.
    Response: Our preamble discussion does not raise or lower the bar 
for finding ``destruction or adverse modification.'' The Services 
believe that this discussion of ``appreciably diminish'' comports with 
prior guidance and with the statute.
Baseline Jeopardy and Tipping Point
    As discussed in our proposed rule's preamble, the definitions of 
``destruction or adverse modification'' and ``jeopardize the continued 
existence of'' both use the term ``appreciably,'' and the analysis must 
always consider whether impacts are ``appreciable,'' even where 
critical habitat or a species already faces severe threats prior to the 
action. We thus noted that the statute and regulations do not contain 
any provisions under which a species should be found to be already 
(pre-action) in an existing status of being ``in jeopardy'' ``in 
peril,'' or ``jeopardized'' by baseline conditions, such that any 
additional adverse impacts must be found to meet the regulatory 
standards for ``jeopardize the continued existence of'' or 
``destruction or adverse modification.'' As we explained, the terms 
``jeopardize the continued existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' are, in the plain language of section 7(a)(2), 
determinations that are made about the effects of Federal actions. They 
are not determinations made about the environmental baseline for the 
proposed action or about the pre-action condition of the species.
    The proposed rule's preamble also explains the Services' view that, 
contrary to the implications of some court opinions and commenters, 
they are not, in making section 7(a)(2) determinations, required to 
identify a ``tipping point'' beyond which the species cannot recover 
from any additional adverse effect. Neither the Act nor our regulations 
state any requirement for the Services to identify a ``tipping point'' 
or recovery benchmark for making section 7(a)(2) determinations. 
Section 7(a)(2) provides the Services with discretion as to how it will 
determine whether the statutory prohibition on jeopardy or destruction 
or adverse modification is exceeded. We also noted that the state of 
science often does not allow the Services to identify a ``tipping 
point'' for many species.
    Comment: Some commenters stated opposition to the Services' 
interpretation and said it would undermine conservation. In particular, 
many commenters asserted that some species are so imperiled or rare 
that they are in fact in a state of ``baseline jeopardy'' and cannot 
sustain any additional adverse effects. Such species, they asserted, 
should be considered to be in a state of ``baseline jeopardy'' or 
``baseline peril.''
    Response: The Services do not dispute that some listed species are 
more imperiled than others, and that for some very rare or very 
imperiled species, the amount of adverse effects to critical habitat or 
to the species itself that can occur without triggering a 
``jeopardize'' or ``destruction or adverse modification'' determination 
may be small. However, the statute and regulations do not contain the 
phrase ``baseline jeopardy.'' Nor does the statute or its regulations 
recognize any state or status of ``baseline jeopardy.'' While the term 
``jeopardy'' is sometimes used as a shorthand, the statutory language 
is ``jeopardize the continued existence,'' and it applies prospectively 
to the effects of Federal actions, not to the pre-action status of the 
species. As we stated in our proposed rule preamble, ``[t]he terms 
`jeopardize the continued existence of' and `destruction or adverse 
modification' are, in the plain language of section 7(a)(2), 
determinations that are made about the effects of Federal agency 
actions. They are not determinations made about the environmental 
baseline or about the pre-action condition of the species. Under the 
[Act], a listed species will have the status of `threatened' or 
`endangered,' and all threatened and endangered species by definition 
face threats to their continued existence'' (83 FR 35178, July 25, 
2018, p. 83 FR at 35182). For the ``jeopardize'' determinations, as 
with the ``destruction or adverse modification'' determinations, a 
determination that there are likely to be adverse effects of a Federal 
action is the starting point of formal consultation. The Services are 
then obliged to consider the magnitude and significance of the effects 
they cause, when added to the environmental baseline and cumulative 
effects, and the status of the species or critical habitat, before 
making our section 7(a)(2) determination.
    Comment: Some commenters asserted that it is not possible to 
rationally analyze whether an action jeopardizes a species without 
identifying a ``tipping point.''
    Response: Different commenters, as well as prior court opinions, 
have offered varying interpretations of what the term ``tipping point'' 
means. For example, one commenter on the proposed rule says that 
``[t]ipping points for species are when the environment degrades itself 
to where the population growth is too low to support a viable 
population.'' The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has described the 
concept as ``a tipping point beyond which the species cannot recover.'' 
See Oceana, Inc. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 705 F. App'x 577, 580 
(9th Cir. 2017); see also Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 628 F.3d 
513, 527 (9th Cir. 2010) (referring to a ``tipping point precluding 
recovery''). Another Ninth Circuit case described the issue as one of 
determining ``at what point survival and recovery will be placed at 
risk'' (Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 
917, 936 (9th Cir. 2008)), in order to avoid ``tipping a listed species 
too far into danger.'' Id. We disagree that a rational analysis of 
whether an action is likely to jeopardize a species necessarily 
requires identification of such a ``tipping point.''

[[Page 44988]]

The state of the science regarding the trends and population dynamics 
of a species may often not be robust enough to establish such tipping 
points with sufficient certainty or confidence, and the Services have 
successfully increased the abundance of some species from a very small 
population size (e.g., California condor). In addition, there are 
myriad variables that affect species viability, and it would not likely 
be the case that one could reduce the inquiry to a single ``tipping 
point.'' For example, species viability may be closely tied to 
abundance, reproductive rate or success, genetic diversity, immunity, 
food availability or food web changes, competition, habitat quality or 
quantity, mate availability, etc. In those cases, the attempt to define 
a tipping point could undermine the rationality of the determination, 
bind the Services to base their judgment on overly rigid criteria that 
give a misleading sense of exactitude, and unduly limit the ability to 
exercise best professional judgment and factor in the actual scientific 
uncertainties. The Services do not dispute that, in some cases, there 
could be a species that is so rare or imperiled that it reaches a point 
where there is little if any room left for it to tolerate additional 
adverse effects without being jeopardized by the action. But even in 
those cases, the Services would apply the necessary ``reduce 
appreciably'' standard to the ``jeopardize'' determination. The 
Services' final determination should be judged according to whether it 
reasonably applied the governing statutory and regulatory standards and 
used the best scientific and commercial data available. There is no de 
facto or automatic requirement that a reasonable conclusion must 
include an artificial requirement, ungrounded in the statute, to 
identify a ``tipping point.''
    Comment: Some commenters asserted that the preamble, particularly 
with respect to ``tipping point'' and ``baseline jeopardy,'' was 
inconsistent with the interpretation stated in a 1981 ``Solicitor's 
opinion'' referenced as Appendix D to the 1998 Consultation Handbook. 
The commenters call attention to a statement in that memorandum 
describing how, when a succession of Federal actions may affect a 
species, ``the authorization of Federal projects may proceed until it 
is determined that further actions are likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its 
critical habitat.'' That memo further states that ``[i]t is this 
`cushion' of natural resources which is available for allocation to 
[Federal] projects until the utilization is such that any future use 
may be likely to jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify or 
destroy its critical habitat. At this point, any additional Federal 
activity in the area requiring a further consumption of resources would 
be precluded under section 7.'' Commenters assert that this language 
recognizes the existence of ``baseline jeopardy'' and/or recognizes 
that the Services must utilize the tipping point concept in performing 
a section 7(a)(2) analysis.
    Response: The subject matter of the referenced memorandum was the 
treatment of cumulative effects. In any case, the guidance provided in 
that memorandum is not in conflict with the preamble discussion 
provided in the proposed rule on ``appreciably diminish,'' ``tipping 
point,'' and ``baseline jeopardy,'' or in conflict with the Services' 
long-standing interpretations stated in the recent proposed rule's 
preamble. The position of the Services is that there is nothing in the 
Act or its regulations, or necessitated under the standards of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, requiring that a section 7(a)(2) analysis 
quantify or identify a ``tipping point.''
Definition of Director
    Comment: Some commenters agreed with the proposed revised 
definition. One commenter expressed concern that revising the 
definition would require consultations to be finalized at the Services' 
Headquarters offices and result in delays. Another commenter suggested 
the definition make clear that any ``authorized representative'' of the 
Director meet the respective eligibility requirements for political 
appointment to the position of Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
for NMFS and Director of FWS.
    Response: While we understand the commenter's observation regarding 
occasional lapses in Senate-confirmed agency leadership, we are unaware 
of any actual issues related to either the existing or revised 
definition; therefore, we decline to make any additional changes. As 
stated in the proposed rule, the purpose of revising the definition is 
to clarify and simplify it, in accordance with the Act and the 
Services' current practice. The revised definition designates the head 
of both FWS and NMFS as the definitional Director under the Act section 
7 interagency cooperation regulations. The change does not revise the 
current signature delegations of the Services in place that allow for 
signature of specified section 7 documents (e.g., biological opinions 
and concurrence letters) at the regional and field levels and will not 
increase the completion time for consultation.
Definition of Effects of the Action
    The Services proposed to revise the definition of ``effects of the 
action'' in a manner that simplified the definition by collapsing the 
terms ``direct, ``indirect,'' interrelated,'' and ``interdependent'' 
and by applying a two-part test of ``but for'' and ``reasonably certain 
to occur.'' Related to this revised definition, we also proposed to 
make the definition of environmental baseline a stand-alone definition 
within Sec.  402.02 and moved the instruction that the effects of the 
proposed action shall be added to the environmental baseline into the 
regulations guiding the Services' responsibilities in formal 
consultation in Sec.  402.14(g). In addition, we proposed to add a new 
Sec.  402.17 titled ``Other provisions'' and, within that new section, 
add a new provision titled ``Activities that are reasonably certain to 
occur'' in order to clarify the application of the ``reasonably certain 
to occur'' standard referenced in two specific contexts: activities 
caused by but not included as part of the proposed action, and 
activities under ``cumulative effects.'' As discussed above under 
Discussion of Changes from Proposed Rule, the Services received 
numerous comments on the proposed definition of ``effects of the 
action'' and the new provision at Sec.  402.17(a) ``Activities that are 
reasonably certain to occur.'' We have adopted a final, revised 
definition of ``effects of the action'' and revised text at Sec.  
402.17(a) in response to those comments. Below, we summarize other 
comments received on the scope of the ``effects of the action'' and the 
proposed two-part test for effects of the action of ``but for'' and 
``reasonably certain to occur'' and present our responses. We address 
changes to the environmental baseline definition in a separate 
discussion below.
Scope of Effects of the Action
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that removal of the terms 
``direct,'' ``indirect,'' ``interrelated,'' and ``interdependent'' 
would hamper discussions because those terms could no longer be used.
    Response: The terms are not prohibited from use in discussion, as 
they can be useful when discussing the mode or pathway of the effects 
of an action or activity. However, as discussed above, elimination of 
these terms simplifies the definition of ``effects of the action'' and 
causes fewer concerns about parsing what label applies to each 
consequence. Now consequences caused by the proposed

[[Page 44989]]

action encompass all effects of the proposed action, including effects 
from what used to be referred to as ``direct'' and ``indirect'' effects 
and ``interrelated'' or ``interdependent'' activities.
    Comment: A commenter questioned the ability of the proposed two-
part test to capture the risks of low probability but high consequence 
impacts such as an oil spill and welcomed an explanation of this 
scenario.
    Response: As discussed throughout this rule and in the proposed 
rule, the Service's overall approach to ``effects of the action'' has 
been retained. During consultation, the consequences of the Federal 
agency action are reviewed in light of specific facts and circumstances 
related to the proposed action. If appropriate, those effects are then 
considered in the effects of the action analysis. Therefore, the 
Services expect that scenarios such as that mentioned by the commenter 
will be subject to review just as they have been in current 
consultation practice.
    Comment: One commenter believed that it is critical to clarify that 
consultation is focused on the actual effects of the agency action on 
listed species and designated critical habitat, and that those effects 
are to be differentiated from the environmental baseline. They 
recommended adding ``[e]ffects of the action shall be clearly 
differentiated from the environmental baseline'' to the definition of 
``effects of the action.''
    Response: The Services decline to make the suggested addition to 
the definition of ``effects of the action.'' In the proposed rule, the 
Services made clear that the ``environmental baseline'' is a separate 
consideration from the effects of the proposed Federal action by both 
proposing to separate the definition of the term into a standalone 
definition and by clarifying the instruction to add the effects of the 
action to the environmental baseline as part of amendments to the 
language at Sec.  402.14(g). As discussed above, the Services also have 
added an additional sentence to the definition of environmental 
baseline to help further clarify when the consequences of certain 
ongoing agency facilities and activities fall within the environmental 
baseline and would therefore not be considered in ``effects of the 
action.''
    Comment: A few commenters requested that if the distinction between 
non-Federal ``activities'' and ``effects'' is maintained, the 
background to the final rule should more clearly explain the purpose 
and meaning of the distinction, and that the Services should clarify 
that discretionary Federal actions currently characterized as 
``interrelated and interdependent'' remain subject to the consultation 
requirement.
    Response: The Services are adopting a revised definition of effects 
of the action, as described above. The distinction between activities 
and effects (now ``consequences'') in this definition is intended to 
capture two aspects of the analysis of the ``effects of the action.'' 
First, a proposed Federal action may cause other associated or 
connected actions, which are referred to as other activities caused by 
the proposed action in the definition to differentiate them from the 
proposed Federal ``action.'' These activities would have been called 
``interrelated'' or ``interdependent'' actions or ``indirect effects'' 
under the prior definition codified at Sec.  402.02. In large part due 
to the three possible categories these activities could have fallen 
into, and the debates that regularly ensued while attempting to 
categorize them, we chose to collapse those three possible categories 
and ``direct effects'' into ``all consequences'' caused by the proposed 
action. Second, both the proposed action and the other activities 
caused by the proposed action may have physical, chemical, or biotic 
consequences on the listed species and critical habitat. Both the 
proposed action and other activities caused by the proposed action must 
be investigated to determine the physical, chemical, and biotic 
consequences. In the case of an activity that is caused by (but not 
part of) the proposed action, the two-part test must be examined 
twice--once for the activity and then again for the consequences of 
that activity. Additionally, if Federal activities caused by the 
Federal agency action under consultation are identified, those 
additional activities should be ``combined in the consultation and a 
lead agency . . . determined for the overall consultation'' (1998 
Consultation Handbook at p. 4-28).
    Comment: One commenter argued that, by eliminating the language 
directing the Services to consider direct and indirect effects together 
with interrelated or interdependent actions, the Services have revised 
the language to account only for direct effects. They argue that this 
proposed revision is inconsistent with the intent of the Act and its 
scientific underpinnings, as it ignores the fact that many imperiled 
species face multiple threats that compound one another.
    Response: The proposed definition of ``effects of the action'' 
neither ignored the multiple threats facing listed species and critical 
habitats nor did it reduce all effects analysis only to the 
consideration of direct effects. The Services have adopted a revised, 
final definition of ``effects of the action'' that clarifies that all 
of the consequences of a proposed action must be evaluated, and that 
the causation tests are applied to all effects of the proposed action. 
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, a complete assessment of the 
``effects of the action'' would require, where appropriate, the 
consideration of multiple stressors and consequences resulting from any 
synergistic, or compounding factors. These consequences would then be 
added to the environmental baseline and cumulative effects per the 
provisions now found at Sec.  402.14(g)(4).
    Comment: One commenter suggested the final regulations explicitly 
recognize an obligation to consider ``spillover effects'': ``In some 
contexts, efforts to modify or condition an action in order to reduce 
the impacts of the activity may result in `spillover effects' that, 
ultimately, result in more adverse impacts to the species. A `spillover 
effect' is the unintended consequence that occurs when an action in one 
market results in a corollary effect in another market. For example, a 
closure of the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline fishery in the early 
2000s was demonstrated to result in thousands of additional sea turtle 
interactions due to the replacement of market share by foreign 
fisheries that do not implement the same protected species measures as 
the U.S. fishery and consequently interact with many more turtles.''
    Response: The purpose and obligation of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
is that Federal agencies are required to insure their proposed actions 
are not likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. This obligation is directed solely at the 
Federal action and may not be abrogated because of the potential 
response of other agencies or entities engaged in the same or similar 
actions. In the case of proposed Federal actions, the consequences of 
the proposed action, such as the incidental capture of sea turtles in 
Hawaii-based longline fishing gear from the commenter's example, must 
be evaluated. Other consequences could possibly include such 
``spillover effects'' if they meet the ``but for'' and ``reasonably 
certain to occur'' causation tests applied to consequences caused by 
the proposed action under the revised, final definition of effects of 
the action, but this would have to be determined on a case-by-case 
basis. Further, the effects of other actions such as those described in 
the example may already be included in the overall jeopardy analysis as 
part of the status of the species, environmental baseline, and/or 
cumulative effects.

[[Page 44990]]

    Comment: A few commenters were concerned that we were proposing a 
different standard when evaluating the effects of ``harmful'' or 
``beneficial'' actions or activities, or conversely, that we were not 
proposing a different standard when we should hold ``beneficial 
actions'' to a higher certainty standard given their importance in 
minimizing or offsetting the adverse effects of proposed actions.
    Response: Commenters pointed to examples in case law or past 
projects where actions or measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the 
effects of agency actions were held to an expectation of ``specific or 
binding plans.'' While the Services appreciate the concern raised, the 
Services do not intend to hold beneficial activities or measures 
offsetting adverse effects to either a higher or lower standard than 
any other type of action or measure proposed by a Federal agency. Any 
type of action proposed by a Federal agency first receives a 
presumption that it will occur, but it must also be described in 
sufficient detail that FWS or NMFS can both understand the action and 
evaluate the effects of the action. Similarly, whether considered 
beneficial or adverse, the consequences of the various components of 
the Federal agency's action are governed by the same causation standard 
set forth in the definition of ``effects of the action.''
    Comment: A few commenters suggested that the ``effects'' of the 
action should not include ``effects'' that an agency lacks the legal 
authority to lessen, offset, or prevent in taking the action.
    Response: As we further discuss below under Sec.  402.03, 
Applicability, the Services decline to limit the ``effects of the 
action'' to only those effects or activities over which the Federal 
agency exerts legal authority or control. As an initial matter, section 
7 applies to actions in which there is discretionary Federal 
involvement or control (50 CFR 402.03). Once in consultation, all 
consequences caused by the proposed action, including the consequences 
of activities caused by the proposed action, must be considered under 
the Services' definition of ``effects of the action.'' These may 
include the consequences to the listed species or designated critical 
habitat from the activities of some party other than the Federal agency 
seeking consultation, provided those activities would not occur but for 
the proposed action under consultation, and both the activities and the 
consequences to the listed species or designated critical habitat are 
reasonably certain to occur. Where this causation standard is met, the 
action agency has a substantive duty under the statute to ensure the 
effects of its discretionary action are not likely to jeopardize a 
listed species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. We 
recognize that the Services and action agencies sometimes struggle with 
the concept of reviewing the consequences from other activities not 
under the action agency's control in a consultation. However, including 
all relevant consequences is not a fault assessment procedure; rather, 
it is the required analysis necessary for a Federal agency to comply 
with its substantive duties under section 7(a)(2). When the Services 
write an incidental take statement for a biological opinion, under 
section 7(b)(4)(iv) of the Act they can assign responsibility of 
specific terms and conditions of the incidental take statement to the 
federal agency, the applicant, or both. As the Supreme Court noted in 
Home Builders, ``TVA v. Hill thus supports the position . . . that the 
[Act]'s no-jeopardy mandate applies to every discretionary agency 
action--regardless of the expense or burden its application might 
impose'' (551 U.S. at 671 [emphasis added]).
    The legislative history of section 7 of the Act confirms the 
Services' position. In particular, National Wildlife Federation v. 
Coleman, 529 F.2d 359 (1976) is a case often cited to support the 
proposition that indirect effects outside the authority and 
jurisdiction of an action agency are a relevant consideration in 
determining if the agency action is likely to jeopardize a listed 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. The Act's 
legislative history from 1979 indicates that Congress was fully aware 
of the Coleman decision when they changed the definition from ``does 
not jeopardize'' to ``is not likely to jeopardize.'' In fact, the House 
Conference Report 96-697 to the 1979 amendments specifically references 
the case. In referencing the relevant amendments to section 7, the 
Conference Report says, ``The conference report adopts the language of 
the house amendment to section 7(a) pertaining to consultation by 
federal agencies with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service. The amendment, which would require all 
federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize endangered or threatened species or result in the adverse 
modification of critical habitat, brings the language of the statute 
into conformity with existing agency practice, and judicial decisions, 
such as the opinion in National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman. H.R. 
Conference Report 96-697 (1979).''
``But for'' Causation
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
application of the ``but for'' test to the effects of the proposed 
action would result in a simplistic evaluation of effects that would 
miss important considerations of the consequences of multiple effects, 
synergistic effects, or other more complex pathways by which an action 
may affect listed species or critical habitat.
    Response: As noted elsewhere, the Services have revised the 
definition of ``effects of the action'' to indicate that all 
consequences of the proposed action must be considered and to apply the 
two-part test of ``but for'' and ``reasonably certain to occur'' to all 
effects. This approach is, in application, consistent with the prior 
regulatory definition, and the Services accordingly anticipate the 
scope of their effects analyses will stay the same.
    As with current practice, the Services intend to evaluate the 
appropriate pathways of causation specific to the action and its 
effects for the purposes of the assessment of impacts to the species 
and critical habitat. This is not a liability test but an assessment of 
the expected consequences of an action using, for example, well-
founded, physical, chemical, and biotic principles that are relevant to 
Act consultations. For a consequence to be considered an effect of the 
action, it must have a causal relationship with the action or activity. 
``But for'' causation does not impair the Services' inquiry into other 
complex scenarios. As we noted above, a complete assessment of the 
``effects of the action'' would require, where appropriate, the 
consideration of multiple stressors and overlapping, synergistic, or 
contributing factors. All of these considerations are important in 
ecology, sufficiently captured in the application of the ``but for'' 
test, and routinely serve as the foundation for section 7(a)(2) 
analyses. In addition, these consequences would then be added to the 
environmental baseline, which along with cumulative effects, status of 
the species and critical habitat, are used to complete our section 
7(a)(2) assessment.
    Comment: A few commenters urged the Services to adopt a ``proximate 
cause'' standard as the appropriate standard for determining the 
effects of the action.
    Response: Although the term ``proximate cause'' was used by several 
commenters, the term itself and its application to the determination of 
the

[[Page 44991]]

effects of the action in the context of the Act generally was not 
defined by the commenters. There is no Federal standard definition for 
``proximate cause,'' a term that developed through judicial decisions. 
Further, proximate cause can differ if used for assigning liability in 
criminal action as compared to civil tort matters, neither of which 
consideration is directly relevant in the section 7(a)(2) context of 
evaluating the anticipated effects of proposed Federal actions on 
listed species and critical habitat. With regard to use of proximate 
cause in an environmental context, in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of 
Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), Justice O'Connor 
described proximate cause as ``introducing notions of foreseeability.'' 
Id. at 709. As set out below, the ``reasonably certain to occur'' test 
in our definition of ``effects of the action'' imparts similar 
limitations on causation as an explicit foreseeability test. 
Additionally, the ``but for'' causation standard is in essence a 
factual causation standard. The Services' test to determine the effects 
of the action, therefore, adopts analogous principles to those 
identified by courts for proximate causation.
    Comment: Several commenters cited to National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) case law, such as Department of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 
541 U.S. 752 (2004) (``Public Citizen'') in support of their view of 
the proper scope of the analysis of the effects of the action and the 
use of proximate causation to determine those effects.
    Response: The Services decline to adopt the sort of ``proximate 
cause'' standard in the context of section 7 of the Act that has been 
applied by courts in the NEPA context. A ``proximate cause'' standard 
has been invoked by courts in the NEPA context (for example, see Public 
Citizen, 541 U.S. at 767). We reviewed the relevant NEPA case law, 
including Public Citizen, and do not think it is determinative in the 
context of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. The Services concluded that the 
cases cited were focused on a different issue than what is required 
when determining the ``effects of the action.'' As the Eleventh Circuit 
noted in Florida Key Deer v. Paulison, 522 F.3d 1133 (11th Cir. 2008), 
Public Citizen ``stands for nothing more than the intuitive proposition 
that an agency cannot be held accountable for the effects of actions it 
has no discretion not to take.'' Id. at 1144. In addition, many of 
these cases emphasized that the NEPA and Act are not similar statutes 
and have different underlying policies and purposes. For example, in 
Public Citizen, the Supreme Court emphasized that NEPA's two purposes 
(to inform the decision-maker and engage the public) would not be 
served by analyzing those actions over which the action agency had no 
discretion. Id. at 767-68. We agree that the same is true for actions 
under the Act; that is, by regulation, the Act only applies to actions 
in which there is ``discretionary Federal involvement or control'' (50 
CFR 402.03). See National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of 
Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 667 (U.S. 2007) (holding section 7(a)(2) 
applies to only discretionary Federal actions but distinguishing Public 
Citizen on the grounds that Act ``imposes a substantive (and not just a 
procedural) statutory requirement'').
    With regard to that distinction, the cited cases point to the 
underlying policy differences between NEPA and the Act, with an 
emphasis on the affirmative burden on Federal action agencies with 
regard to endangered species. This is a significant distinction as the 
Supreme Court noted in Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear 
Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983), ``courts must look to the underlying 
policies or legislative intent in order to draw a manageable line 
between those causal changes that may make an actor responsible for an 
effect and those that do not.'' Id. at 774 n. 7. The underlying policy 
of a statute and legislative intent must shape the causation nexus. In 
that regard, section 7(a)(2) of the Act imposes an affirmative and 
substantive duty on Federal agencies to avoid actions that are likely 
to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify/destroy critical 
habitat. See Home Builders, 551 U.S. at 671 (``the [Act]'s no-jeopardy 
mandate applies to every discretionary agency action--regardless of the 
expense or burden its application might impose''). In light of the 
above, and the related reasons the Services discussed in rejecting a 
``jurisdiction or control'' limit to the effects of discretionary 
agency actions, the Services decline to impose an additional proximate 
causation requirement applicable in the NEPA context for effects of the 
action under section 7(a)(2).
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Services explain how the 
``effects of the action'' assessment changes the consideration of 
``indirect effects,'' which does not currently use ``but for'' 
causation.
    Response: The original definition of ``indirect effects'' in 
regulation at Sec.  402.02 refers to effects that are ``caused by'' the 
proposed action whereas the Services' 1998 Consultation Handbook 
includes the phrase ``caused by or results from,'' both of which 
require an assessment of a causal connection between an action and an 
effect. The ``but for'' causation test in the revised, final definition 
of ``effects of the action'' is similar to ``caused by'' or ``caused by 
or results from'' in that both tests speak to a connection between the 
proposed action and the consequent results of that action, whether they 
be physical, chemical, or biotic consequences to the environment, the 
species, or critical habitat, or activities that would not occur but 
for the proposed action. Both tests require a determination of factual 
causation, and we do not anticipate a change in the Services' practice 
in applying ``but for'' causation to consequences once termed 
``indirect effects'' compared to the regulatory term ``caused by.'' As 
we noted in the preamble of the proposed rule, ``[i]t has long been our 
practice that identification of direct and indirect effects as well as 
interrelated and interdependent activities is governed by the `but for' 
standard of causation. Our [1998] Consultation Handbook states . . . 
`In determining whether the proposed action is reasonably likely to be 
the direct or indirect cause of incidental take, the Services use the 
simple causation principle: i.e., `but for' the implementation of the 
proposed action. . . .' ([1998] Consultation Handbook, page 4-47)'' (83 
FR 35178, July 25, 2018, p. 83 FR 35183).
    Comment: One commenter expressed concerns that the use of the ``but 
for'' test could result in a determination of ``effects'' that is over 
inclusive. They supported the retention of the current rules governing 
the ``effects of the action'' and advocated their application in 
conjunction with the multi-factor test for effects described in the 
1998 Consultation Handbook. Conversely, one other commenter felt that 
the test was narrowing the scope and we should retain the term 
originally used in ``indirect effects,'' ``or result from'' in our 1998 
Consultation Handbook definition--in other words ``effects or 
activities that are caused by or result from.''
    Response: The Services requested comment whether the proposed 
definition altered the scope of the effects of the action. With the 
revisions we are making in this final rule and as discussed elsewhere 
in this rule, there will not be a shift in the scope of the effects we 
consider under our new definition of ``effects of the action,'' and, 
therefore, our analyses will be neither over nor under inclusive. Some 
of the commenters expressing concerns about over-inclusivity refer to a 
multi-factor

[[Page 44992]]

test (pages 4-23 through 4-26 of the 1998 Consultation Handbook) for 
determining the effects of the action, but those factors are important 
to the consideration of the impact those effects will have on the 
species or critical habitat and not whether the effects or activity 
will occur. Those remain important considerations for the analysis of 
the effects of the action on listed species and critical habitat. 
Section 7(a)(2) consultation is required for all Federal actions with 
discretionary involvement or control that may affect listed species or 
critical habitat. Our assessment of the proposed and revised, final 
definition of ``effects of the action'' is that, generally, all of the 
effects previously considered will still be included in the scope of 
the ``effects of the action'' and that no other effects or activities 
not a direct or indirect effect of the proposed Federal action will be 
included. The improvements to the definition of ``effects of the 
action,'' including the explicit establishment of the two-part test for 
effects, is that the underlying support for the consequences and 
activities considered by the Services in the analysis will be guided by 
a clearer standard and, therefore, be more consistent and transparent. 
Nor do the Services find that the proposed or revised, final definition 
of ``effects of the action'' narrows the scope of the effects that 
would be considered. We have explicitly retained the same full range of 
effects to listed species or critical habitat from the proposed action 
as under our prior definition through the inclusion of ``all 
consequences'' of the proposed action in the revised, final definition.
``Reasonably Certain to Occur''
    Comment: Several commenters requested that we articulate a set of 
factors to apply in determining what effects are reasonably certain to 
occur from a proposed action.
    Response: We agree with the commenters' suggestion. Please see our 
discussion of changes to Sec.  402.17 under Section 402.17--Other 
Provisions, above.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that the test for effects of the 
action should also include ``reasonably foreseeable'' as a means of 
further avoiding speculation or over inflation of the effects of an 
action or activities.
    Response: The Services responded to similar comments in the 
preambles to the 1986 regulation (51 FR 19926, June 3, 1986, p. 51 FR 
19932) and the 2008 regulation (73 FR 76272, December 16, 2008, p. 73 
FR 76277). Again in this rule, we decline to make this change. The 
Services view ``reasonably certain to occur'' to be a higher threshold 
than ``reasonably foreseeable,'' a term that is more in line with the 
scope of effects analysis under NEPA. As stated in the 1986 preamble, 
``NEPA is procedural in nature, rather than substantive, which would 
warrant a more expanded review of . . . effects'' than the Act, which 
imposes ``a substantive prohibition'' (51 FR 19926, June 3, 1986, p. 51 
FR 19933). The Act's prohibitions against Federal actions that are 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat calls for a stricter 
standard than ``reasonably foreseeable.''
    Comment: Some commenters requested that the Services elaborate on 
the factors to consider when determining whether an activity is 
reasonably certain to occur as part of the two-part test for effects of 
the action. Others provided proposals of appropriate factors or 
specificity that should be contained in such an assessment. These 
included: (1) The extent to which a prior action that is similar in 
scope, nature, magnitude, and location has caused a consequent action 
or activity to occur; (2) any existing plans for the initiation of an 
action or activity by the consulting action agency, the permit or 
license applicant or another related entity that is directly connected 
to, and dependent upon, implementation of the proposed action; and (3) 
the extent to which a potential action or activity has intervening or 
necessary economic, administrative, and legal requirements that are 
prerequisites for the action to be initiated and the level of certainty 
that can be attributed to the completion of such intervening or 
necessary steps. A few commenters suggested that the only factor should 
be whether the activity was ``definitely planned and concretely 
identifiable,'' while others suggested the only factor should be the 
use of the best scientific and commercial data available.
    Response: Identifying activities that are ``reasonably certain to 
occur'' is one part of the two-part test when evaluating the 
consequences of a proposed Federal action. As discussed in the proposed 
rule, this two-part test identifies activities previously captured 
under ``indirect effects'' and ``interrelated and interdependent 
actions'' that are now included within ``all consequences'' caused by 
the proposed action. ``Reasonably certain to occur'' is also the 
current test in the identification of non-Federal activities that 
should be included as cumulative effects. Our intent with the proposed 
factors to consider was to provide a general, but not limiting, 
guideline to inform the assessment. However, upon consideration of the 
comments and suggestions, the Services have revised the factors under 
Sec.  402.17(a) to further elaborate on the factors related to the 
Service's past experience with identifying activities that are 
reasonably certain to occur as a result of a proposed action and the 
type of plans that would be indicative of an activity that is 
reasonably certain to occur. Suggestions to limit the consideration of 
activities that are reasonably certain to occur to only those that are 
``definitely planned and concretely identifiable'' would 
inappropriately narrow the scope of our consideration of the effects of 
a proposed Federal action. For the factors we have identified, we also 
note that this list of factors is neither exhaustive nor a required 
minimum set of considerations.
    Additionally, the Services have specified that the conclusion that 
an activity is reasonably certain to occur must be based on clear and 
substantial information, using the best scientific and commercial data 
available. We believe these revisions help clarify the potentially 
relevant factors and the standard the Services will apply to such 
queries, leading to more consistent and predictable administration of 
the Services' section 7(a)(2) responsibilities.
    Further, nothing in the language of the Sec.  402.17(a) provision 
conflicts with or prevents the Services from using the best scientific 
and commercial data available as we are required to do for section 
7(a)(2) analyses. This information is quite relevant to our 
consideration of the factors as both scientific and commercial 
information can be the sources we draw upon for ``past experience,'' 
``existing plans for that activity,'' and ``any remaining . . . 
requirements.'' In all instances, we will draw upon the best scientific 
and commercial data available to determine if, in light of the relevant 
factors and based on clear and substantial information, an activity is 
reasonably certain to occur.
    Comment: A few commenters questioned how ``activities that are 
reasonably certain to occur'' are defined when the consultation is on 
national or large regional programs.
    Response: Oftentimes, when a section 7(a)(2) consultation is 
performed at the level of a regional or national program, it is 
referred to as a programmatic consultation, as defined by the Services 
in the proposed rule, and the proposed action is referred to as a 
framework programmatic action from our 2015 rule revising incidental 
take statement regulations (80 FR 26832, May 11, 2015). In these 
instances, the ``but for''

[[Page 44993]]

and ``reasonably certain to occur'' parts of the test extend to the 
consequences that would be expected to occur under the program 
generally, but not to the specifics of actual projects that may receive 
future authorization under the program. Effects analyses at this more 
generalized level are necessary because the Federal agency often does 
not have specific information about the number, location, timing, 
frequency, precise methods, and intensity of the site-specific actions 
or activities for their program.
    We can expect that a program that authorizes bank stabilization, 
for example, will result in actions that stabilize riverbanks, 
streambanks, or even the banks of lakes and estuaries. However, we 
cannot, within those same bounds, reasonably describe the exact nature 
of the yet-to-be-permitted bank stabilization, its location, or timing. 
We are able to provide an informed effects analysis at the more 
generalized level, however, by analyzing the project design criteria, 
best management practices, standards and guidelines, and other 
provisions the program adopts to minimize the impact of future actions 
under the program. For example, best management practices such as 
required sediment control methods or stabilization material 
requirements provide the Services with an understanding of the possible 
scope of materials and methods that would be expected in any given 
project even if the specific timing, location, or extent of future 
unauthorized projects is unknown.
    Alternatively, some Federal agencies may be able to provide 
somewhat more specific information on the numbers, timing, and location 
of activities under their plan or program. In those instances, we may 
have sufficient information not only to address the generalized nature 
of the program's effects but also the specific anticipated consequences 
that are reasonably certain to occur from specific actions that will be 
subsequently authorized under the program.
    Comment: Several commenters questioned how ``reasonably certain to 
occur'' relates to the direct effects of a proposed action.
    Response: As discussed above, we have revised the definition of 
``effects of the action'' so that the reasonably certain to occur 
standard applies to all consequences caused by the proposed action, 
which include the effects formerly captured by ``direct'' and 
``indirect'' effects and ``interrelated'' and ``interdependent'' 
activities.
    Comment: Several commenters offered suggestions about the ``not 
speculative but does not have to be guaranteed'' range described by the 
Services when discussing the range of probability that could encompass 
``reasonably certain to occur.'' Some suggested that the determination 
should settle on whether the effect or activity is ``probable'' or 
``likely'' rather than merely ``possible,'' or whether there was 
``clear and convincing evidence.'' However, other commenters felt the 
spectrum was not broad enough because we should consider effects or 
activities that were possible even if not likely in order to give the 
benefit of the doubt to the species.
    Response: As discussed above, we have revised the regulatory text 
related to ``reasonably certain to occur'' in the definition of 
``effects of the action'' and at Sec.  402.17(a) and (b). Both for 
activities caused by the action under consultation and cumulative 
effects, the ``reasonably certain to occur'' determination must be 
based on clear and substantial information, using the best scientific 
and commercial data available. The information need not be dispositive, 
free from all uncertainty, or immune from disagreement to meet this 
standard. By clear and substantial, we mean that there must be a firm 
basis to support a conclusion that a consequence of an action is 
reasonably certain to occur. This term is not intended to require a 
certain numerical amount of data; rather, it is simply to illustrate 
that the determination of a consequence or activity to be reasonably 
certain to occur must be based on solid information and should not be 
based on speculation or conjecture. This added term also does not mean 
the nature of the information must support that a consequence or 
activity is guaranteed to occur.
    The Services expect adopting this standard will allow for more 
predictable and consistent identification of activities that are 
considered reasonably certain and is consistent with the Act generally 
and section 7(a)(2) in particular. For similar reasons to those 
discussed below, we do not read the legislative history from the 1979 
amendments to section 7 that included the phrase ``benefit of the doubt 
to the species'' to require a different outcome.
Definition of Environmental Baseline
    The Services proposed to create a standalone definition of 
``environmental baseline'' and move the instruction that the ``effects 
of the action'' are added to the ``environmental baseline'' into the 
regulations guiding the Services' responsibilities in formal 
consultation in Sec.  402.14(g). In addition, we requested comment on 
potential revisions to the definition of ``environmental baseline'' as 
it relates to ongoing Federal actions, including a suggested revised 
definition of ``environmental baseline.''
    As discussed above in Discussion of Changes from Proposed Rule, the 
Services received numerous comments on ``environmental baseline'' as it 
relates to the suggested definition and the treatment of ongoing 
Federal actions. As a result of the comments received and after further 
consideration, we have adopted a final, revised definition of 
``environmental baseline.'' Below, we summarize the comments received 
on the definition of ``environmental baseline'' and the revisions to 
Sec.  402.14(g), and we present our responses.
Comments on the Environmental Baseline Definition
    Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to retain the 
existing wording of the definition of the environmental baseline, 
establishing it as a standalone definition under Sec.  402.02, and 
including the instruction to add the effects of the action and the 
cumulative effects to the baseline in Sec.  402.14(g)(4). They noted 
that this would preserve the environmental baseline as a separate and 
important consideration in the overall section 7(a)(2) analysis. A few 
commenters felt that this should result in less confusion about what 
aspects of an ongoing action or a continuation of what could be 
considered an ongoing action should be in the baseline or the effects 
of the action.
    Response: The Services agree that these proposals would preserve 
the environmental baseline as a separate and important consideration in 
the overall section 7(a)(2) analysis and have adopted these proposals 
in the final rule. Further, although many commenters supported adoption 
of the existing language, other comments and the Services' experience 
with implementing the environmental baseline led us to add language to 
the final, adopted definition to clarify that the focus of the 
environmental baseline is on the condition of the species and critical 
habitat in the action area absent the consequences of the action under 
consultation. In addition, the adopted final, revised definition of the 
``environmental baseline'' includes the following clarifying sentence: 
``The consequences to listed species or designated critical habitat 
from ongoing agency activities or existing agency facilities that are 
not within the agency's discretion to modify are part of the 
environmental baseline.''
    Comment: Several commenters provided their views on the role the

[[Page 44994]]

separate assessments of the environmental baseline and the status of 
the species and critical habitat play in the overall jeopardy and 
adverse modification analysis and thereby argued that the environmental 
baseline was too narrow a construct. For example, one commenter 
suggested the Services eliminate the references to ``action area'' in 
the definitions of ``environmental baseline'' and ``cumulative 
effects.'' They stated that, by continuing to limit these definitions 
to effects in the action area, the Services call into question the 
validity of their jeopardy and destruction or adverse modification 
findings.
    Response: The commenters appear to misunderstand how the various 
regulatory provisions (e.g., environmental baseline, status of the 
species and critical habitat, etc.) guide the Services' section 7(a)(2) 
analyses. The purpose of our section 7(a)(2) analyses is to determine 
if the action proposed to be authorized, funded, or carried out by a 
Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the listed species and also 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat designated 
for the conservation of listed species. In section 7(a)(2) analyses, we 
first consider the status of the species and critical habitat in order 
to describe the antecedent or preceding likelihood of survival and 
recovery of the listed species and value of critical habitat that may 
be affected by the proposed action. For a listed species, for example, 
this may be expressed in terms of the species' chances of survival and 
recovery or through discussion of the species' abundance, distribution, 
diversity, productivity, and factors influencing those characteristics. 
Following on the status assessment, the purpose of the environmental 
baseline is to describe, for the action area of the consultation, the 
condition of the portion of the listed species and critical habitat 
that will be exposed to the effects of the action. A significant body 
of scientific literature has established that, without understanding 
this antecedent condition, we cannot predict the expected responses of 
the species (at the individual or population level) or critical habitat 
(at the feature or area level) to the proposed action.
    Ultimately, the environmental baseline is used to understand the 
consequences of an action by providing the context or background 
against which the action's effects will occur. Comparing alternative 
courses of action is not the purpose of the environmental baseline--the 
task is to determine only what is anticipated to occur as a result of 
what has been proposed. When establishing the environmental baseline, 
the focus is on the past and present impacts that human activities and 
other factors (e.g., environmental conditions, predators, prey 
availability) have had on the fitness of individuals and populations of 
the species and features or areas of critical habitat in the action 
area. For example, if we were to consult on pile-driving activities 
(e.g., the installation of piles or poles into a substrate to support a 
structure such as a dock by hammering or vibrating the piles into 
place), the baseline is intended to describe the physiological and 
behavioral condition of an animal that will be exposed to the sound 
waves produced by pile driving. This condition is the product of that 
animal's life history, physiology, and environment and which 
predisposes the animal to a set reaction or range of reactions to the 
sound and pressure waves. Animals in good physiological condition may 
not be perturbed by the action, whereas animals in poor health or 
stressed by other natural or anthropogenic factors, may leave the area, 
stop feeding, or fail to reproduce. Numerous case studies in the 
scientific literature have examined the varying physiological and 
behavioral responses of individuals to perturbations given the animal's 
antecedent condition. Similarly, populations of animals respond 
differently given their abundance, distribution, productivity, and 
diversity in the action area. The effects of the action and cumulative 
effects are added to the environmental baseline to determine how (or 
if) the proposed action affects the fitness of individuals and 
populations or the function, quantity, or quality of critical habitat 
features and areas that are exposed to the action given that antecedent 
condition. Because action areas are often just a small portion of the 
overall critical habitat designation or contain only some of the 
individuals or populations that comprise the listed species, the 
Services must then evaluate whether these action area effects translate 
into meaningful changes in the numbers, reproduction, or distribution 
of the listed species or reductions in the functional value or role the 
affected critical habitat plays in the overall designated critical 
habitat. This information is then considered with the overall viability 
of the listed species and value of designated critical habitat to 
determine if the consequences of the proposed action are likely to 
appreciably reduce the species' likelihood of survival and recovery and 
appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for the conservation 
of the species. As we noted in the responses to comments on the revised 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification,'' the size or 
proportion of the affected area of critical habitat is not 
determinative; impacts to a smaller area may in some cases result in a 
determination of destruction or adverse modification, while impacts to 
a large geographic area will not always result in such a finding. 
Similarly, when considering the effects of the action on the likelihood 
of survival and recovery of listed species, the key consideration is 
the antecedent status of the species and its vulnerability to further 
perturbation, not simply a measure of whether the number of individuals 
affected by the proposed action is ``small'' or ``large.''
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the term 
``aggregate effects'' and how the Services conduct this analysis, given 
the proposal to revise ``effects of the action'' and Sec.  402.14(g)(2) 
and (4) and existing language in the 1998 Consultation Handbook at p. 
4-33. This language states, ``The conclusion section presents the 
Services' opinion regarding whether the aggregate effects of the 
factors analyzed under `environmental baseline,' `effects of the 
action,' and `cumulative effects' in the action area--when viewed 
against the status of the species or critical habitat as listed or 
designated--are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat.'' Commenters were concerned that our proposed revisions would 
result in only assessing the additional effects of the proposed action 
and not the ``aggregate effects'' as they are presented in the 1998 
Consultation Handbook.
    Response: As we noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, our 
proposed revisions to Sec.  402.14(g)(2) and (4) are intended to 
clarify the analytical steps the Services undertake in formulating its 
biological opinion: ``In summary, these analytical steps are: (1) 
Review all relevant information, (2) evaluate current status of the 
species and critical habitat and environmental baseline, (3) evaluate 
effects of the proposed action and cumulative effects, (4) add effects 
of the action and cumulative effects to the environmental baseline, 
and, in light of the status of the species and critical habitat, 
determine if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize listed species 
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat'' (83 FR 35178, July 25, 2018, p. 83 FR 35186). These steps 
encompass the ``aggregate effects'' of adding the effects of the action 
to the

[[Page 44995]]

environmental baseline, and then taken together with cumulative 
effects, considering those results in light of the status of the 
species and critical habitat. There is no change from current Service 
practice or the ``aggregate effects'' guidance in the 1998 Consultation 
Handbook.
    Comment: One commenter noted that often there is not enough 
information available to quantify impacts in the baseline and that 
sometimes that quantification is needed to do the effects analysis. 
Another commenter argued for a scientific defensibility standard before 
putting effects into the environmental baseline for a species to avoid 
speculation about past impacts.
    Response: The Services acknowledge that sometimes information about 
the impacts of the environmental baseline in a particular action area 
is sparse or lacking and that this can complicate our ability to 
analyze the effects of a proposed Federal action. Nevertheless, we are 
required to use the best scientific and commercial data available, or 
that can be obtained during consultation, in our assessments. The use 
of the ``best scientific and commercial data available'' is the 
required standard which both the Services and the Federal agency must 
meet.
    Comment: Tribal commenters suggested adding the concept of tribal 
water rights to the definition of environmental baseline to ensure that 
effects are added to the Tribe's existing right rather than the other 
way around and also suggested that the baseline should be set to 
describe the time when the species and habitat were abundant to provide 
the context of the harms humans have caused and also include an 
assessment of the coming harms of climate change.
    Response: Tribal water rights are important and may be relevant in 
determination of the environmental baseline. We are not changing the 
basic concept of the environmental baseline--it will continue to be 
used as a tool to determine whether the effects of an action under 
consultation are or are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species or destroy or adversely modify designated 
critical habitat. We will determine the appropriate baseline at the 
time of consultation and include those factors relevant to that 
particular consultation.
    Comment: A few commenters questioned whether natural factors would 
be considered in the environmental baseline as those may also play a 
role in the status of the species and critical habitat, and also 
whether impacts to species and habitat due to climate change within and 
outside of the action area would be considered.
    Response: Although the definition of ``environmental baseline'' 
captures the impacts of anthropogenic activities in the past, the 
present, and future Federal projects that have already undergone 
consultation, a true discussion of the environmental baseline would be 
incomplete without a discussion of relevant natural factors or 
processes that inform the condition of the species or critical habitat 
in the action area. For example, natural processes such as fire and 
flood, or the natural erosion of sediments may play a key role in 
species productivity, or certain geographic features in an action area 
may affect the viability and connectedness of the individuals, 
populations, or habitat features.
    Nothing in these regulations changes the manner in which the 
Services may consider climate change in our consultations. The depth of 
consideration of the effects of climate change on the species and 
critical habitat will vary from consultation to consultation based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available. The effects of 
climate change on the species or critical habitat (not related to 
effects of the action) within and outside the action area will be 
addressed, as appropriate, in the environmental baseline or status of 
the species, respectively.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the suggested revised definition 
of ``environmental baseline'' that was presented in the preamble of the 
proposed rule. Those in support agreed with different treatment for 
ongoing (or pre-existing) actions or effects and felt that this would 
avoid overstatement or analysis of the effects of ongoing actions under 
consultation.
    Response: As discussed above, the Services have revised the 
definition of environmental baseline, emphasizing that the baseline is 
the condition of the species and critical habitat in the action area 
without the consequences of the proposed action and adding a third 
sentence to explain that the consequences from ongoing agency 
activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the 
agency's discretion to modify will be included in the environmental 
baseline. The Services believe these revisions address the comments 
received and are consistent with the existing case law and the 
Services' current approach to this issue.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested adopting the NEPA ``cumulative 
effects'' approach to capture the baseline instead of either the 
current definition or the proposed revision.
    Response: The Services decline to adopt the NEPA definition because 
the NEPA term captures a different set of concepts.
    Comment: Most commenters opposed to the alternative definition 
described in the preamble of the proposed rule were opposed on three 
bases: (1) That the ``state of the world'' is overly broad and 
ambiguous and should be replaced by ``action area'' or similar; (2) 
that the proposed approach was unlawful and contrary to established 
case law, and invites speculation about the conditions that would exist 
absent an action; and (3) that the proposed treatment of ``ongoing 
activities'' could have the effect of narrowing the appropriate scope 
of the effects analysis (and contrary to case law) while also 
``grandfathering'' in harmful operations or activities that should be 
subject to section 7 analysis (for example, the U.S. Supreme Court has 
held that ``it is clear Congress foresaw that [section] 7 would, on 
occasion, require agencies to alter ongoing projects in order to 
fulfill the goals of the Act'' (Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 
U.S. 153, 186 (1978))).
    Response: The Services agree that the phrase ``state of the world'' 
is broad. As discussed above, the Services have declined to include 
that wording, and we confirm that the scale of the environmental 
baseline is the action area. The concern by one commenter that harmful 
impacts would be grandfathered into the environmental baseline is 
addressed by clarification in the third sentence. That sentence 
clarifies that in circumstances where there are consequences to listed 
species or critical habitat from ongoing agency activities or existing 
agency facilities that are not within the agency's discretion to 
modify, those would be included and considered in the environmental 
baseline and as part of the overall aggregation of effects described in 
Sec.  402.14(g). Regarding the reference to TVA v. Hill, the ongoing 
project in question was within the discretion of the action agency to 
modify, and thus our definition is consistent with the court's holding.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that creation of specific 
language or guidance in regulation to address those complex cases of 
ongoing actions would be a better approach rather than trying to apply 
one definition to all actions that undergo consultation.
    Response: We have revised the definition of environmental baseline 
to address ongoing actions. Additionally,

[[Page 44996]]

the Services provide some basic discussion of the treatment of this 
issue earlier in this rule. In most instances, the resolution of 
ongoing agency activities or existing agency facilities will be a fact-
based inquiry that turns on the circumstances of a particular 
consultation.
    Comment: Some commenters argued against viewing any improvements in 
ongoing activities as ``beneficial'' and that they should be evaluated 
appropriately as ongoing adverse (albeit reduced) effects of an action 
and not through improper comparative or incremental analyses.
    Response: The definition of environmental baseline does not alter 
the manner in which the effects of the action are characterized. As 
discussed earlier, per Sec.  402.03, all discretionary actions are 
examined against the section 7(a)(2) standard, including beneficial and 
adverse effects. Consultation under the Act is conducted on the effects 
of the entire proposed action (all consequences caused by the proposed 
action). To further clarify, proposed actions for ongoing activities 
that incrementally improve conditions but still have adverse effects 
(i.e., are not wholly beneficial) require formal consultation. As noted 
in the preceding response, the analysis of an action's effects is a 
fact-based, consultation-specific analysis.
    Comment: Some commenters argued that ongoing operations or 
infrastructure should not be considered as part of the effects of the 
action even in the case of a new license or permit if those operations 
or infrastructure are unchanged and that only changes in operations or 
infrastructure would undergo effects analysis. In contrast, other 
commenters noted that operations are only considered ``ongoing'' until 
the valid permit period terminates.
    Response: As discussed earlier, the new definition clarifies how to 
correctly differentiate between consequences belonging in the 
environmental baseline and of those of the proposed action in effects 
of the action for the situations described by the commenters.
    Comment: A few commenters noted that the purpose of the 
environmental baseline is not to create a hypothetical environment in 
which certain features, projects, or events have, or have not, 
occurred. Those commenters assert that, in establishing the 
environmental baseline, the action agency and the Services are not 
picking and choosing facts, they are observing and recording data on 
the present conditions. They further assert that the environmental 
baseline should include both past and present effects of existing 
structures that the Federal action agency has no discretion to modify 
and any impacts from their continued physical existence are not part of 
the proposed action, which is properly focused on future project 
operations.
    Response: As discussed earlier, there are certain consequences from 
ongoing activities or existing facilities that, in and of themselves, 
would not be subject to the consultation on a particular proposed 
action. They are not ignored, however, as they may appropriately be 
included in discussions of baseline or status of the species or 
critical habitat. The Services' definition gives appropriate direction 
on recognizing those circumstances and identifying their consequences.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that it was difficult 
to provide informed public input absent any examples of the types of 
ongoing actions that the Services were intending to address with the 
suggested definition or the accompanying questions posed regarding the 
treatment of these challenging cases.
    Response: As discussed earlier, the Services have added a third 
sentence to better clarify the issue of capturing the consequences of 
ongoing activities in the environmental baseline. This third sentence 
and our supporting example of the Federal dam and water operations 
provides the type of ``challenging case'' to which we referred in the 
preamble of the proposed rule.
Definition of Programmatic Consultation
    We proposed to add a definition for the term ``programmatic 
consultation'' to codify a consultation technique that is being used 
with increasing frequency and to promote the use of programmatic 
consultations as effective tools that can improve both process 
efficiency and conservation in consultations. We received numerous 
comments on the proposed definition, several of which requested further 
clarification of the definition terms, scope, and geographic extent of 
activities and process for programmatic consultations. The discussion 
below contains the Services' responses to these comments.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended the Services clarify the scope 
of activities, geographic extent, and coverage for multiple species 
that can be addressed in a programmatic consultation. Other commenters 
requested clarification that programmatic consultations are optional 
processes that can undergo both formal and informal consultations. A 
few commenters also provided suggestions regarding participation of 
applicants, multiple Federal agencies, and information that can be used 
in the development of the program.
    Response: Section 7 of the Act provides significant flexibility for 
Federal agency compliance with the Act, and various forms of 
programmatic consultations have been successfully implemented for many 
years now. This final regulation codifies that general practice and 
provides a definition that is not intended to identify every type of 
program or set of activities that may be consulted on programmatically. 
The programmatic consultation process offers great flexibility and can 
be strategically developed to address multiple listed species and 
multiple Federal agencies, including applicants as appropriate, for 
both informal and formal consultations.
    While action agencies do have a duty to consult on programs that 
are considered agency actions that may affect a listed species or 
critical habitat, many types of programmatic consultation would be 
considered an optional form of section 7 compliance to, for example, 
address a collection of agency actions that would otherwise be subject 
to individual consultation. These optional types of programmatic 
consultation may be appropriate for a wide range of activities or a 
suite of programs.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the scale at 
which programmatic consultations would occur. Some wanted to clarify 
that site-specific ``tiered'' evaluations were required to insure the 
same level of review for standard consultations, while another was 
concerned that only site-specific consultations would be completed 
without an overall ``holistic'' evaluation at the program level.
    Response: As described in the proposed rule, and in the 2015 
incidental take statement final rule (80 FR 26832, May 11, 2015), 
programmatic consultations may require section 7(a)(2) analyses at both 
the program level as well as at the tiered or step-down, site-specific 
level to insure compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Regardless 
of the exact process required to complete the consultation for the 
proposed program activities, all consultations are required to fully 
satisfy section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Programmatic consultations can be 
used to assess the effects of a program, plan, or set of activities as 
a whole. Depending on the type of programmatic consultation, site-
specific consultations would be completed using the overarching 
analysis provided for in the programmatic consultation.
    Comment: One commenter suggested the Services more clearly explain 
in the

[[Page 44997]]

preamble to the final rule how the terms ``framework programmatic 
action'' and ``mixed programmatic action'' relate to ``programmatic 
consultation.''
    Response: As defined at Sec.  402.02, ``framework programmatic 
action'' and ``mixed programmatic action'' refer to the way in which an 
agency's programmatic actions are structured. These definitions are 
applied specifically in the context of incidental take statements. The 
definition of ``programmatic consultation'' refers to a consultation 
addressing an action agency's multiple actions carried out through a 
program, region, or other basis. A consultation on either a mixed or 
framework programmatic action would be characterized as a programmatic 
consultation. As explained in the 2015 incidental take statement final 
rule (80 FR 26832, May 11, 2015), a framework programmatic action 
establishes a framework for the development of specific future actions 
but does not authorize any future actions and often does not have 
sufficient site-specific information relating to the project-specific 
actions that will proceed under the program, but still requires a 
programmatic consultation to meet the requirements of section 7(a)(2). 
As specific projects are developed in the future, they are subject to 
site-specific stepped-down, or tiered consultations where incidental 
take is addressed. Mixed programmatic actions generally are actions 
that have a mix of both a framework-level proposed action as well as 
site-specific proposed actions. Again, the entire mixed programmatic 
action requires a programmatic consultation, but in this situation, 
incidental take is addressed ``up front'' for the parts of those site-
specific actions that are authorized in the mixed programmatic 
consultation, and stepped-down or tiered consultations are required for 
the future projects that are under the framework part of the proposed 
action.

Section 402.13--Deadline for Informal Consultation

    In the proposed rule, we requested public comment on several 
questions related to the need for and imposition of a deadline on the 
informal consultation process described within Sec.  402.13. 
Specifically we asked: (1) Whether a deadline would be helpful in 
improving the timeliness of review; (2) the appropriate length for a 
deadline (if not 60 days); and (3) how to appropriately implement a 
deadline (e.g., which portions of informal consultation the deadline 
should apply to [e.g., technical assistance, response to requests for 
concurrence, etc.], when informal consultation begins, and the ability 
to extend or ``pause the clock'' in certain circumstances, etc.).
    Based upon the comments received and upon further consideration, 
the Services have revised the language within Sec.  402.13 to provide a 
framework and timeline on a portion of informal consultation. The 
revised regulatory text for Sec.  402.13 is described earlier in this 
final rule. Here we provide a summary of the comments we received and 
our responses.
    Comment: Those commenters who supported the imposition of a 
deadline generally supported: (1) That the deadline applies to the 
concurrence request and response aspect of informal consultation, (2) 
that 60 days seems reasonable (and some suggested an internal or prior 
time period of 15-30 days for sufficiency review), and (3) that the 
deadline should be extendable by mutual agreement with the Federal 
agency and applicant (as appropriate). One commenter was concerned that 
a 60-day deadline would have the adverse consequence of making 60 days 
the new norm for concurrence responses rather than the current 
condition of generally 30 to 45 days.
    Response: As described at Sec.  402.13, informal consultation is an 
optional process that includes all discussions, correspondence, etc., 
between the Services and the Federal agency or the designated non-
Federal representative, designed to assist the Federal agency in 
determining whether formal consultation or a conference is required. 
One aspect of the informal consultation process is the further option 
that, if a Federal agency has determined that their proposed action is 
not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, they 
may conclude their section 7(a)(2) consultation responsibility for that 
action with the written concurrence of the Services. It is this final 
aspect of the informal consultation process that has received the most 
scrutiny and concerns about timeliness and the ability of Federal 
agencies to proceed with actions that are not likely to adversely 
affect listed species or critical habitat. The Services specifically 
requested comment on this issue in the proposed rule, including whether 
to add a 60-day deadline, subject to extension by mutual consent, for 
informal consultations.
    The Services have considered the comments provided on all sides of 
this issue. We have developed regulatory text that addresses many of 
the recommendations; others are addressed in these responses to 
comments but not within the regulatory text. In summary, the regulatory 
text applies a 60-day deadline to the ``request for concurrence and 
Service's written response'' aspect of the overall informal 
consultation process originally described at Sec.  402.13(a) and now 
moved to Sec.  402.13(c). This new section has been revised to include 
the deadline for the concurrence process and the requirement on the 
Federal agency to provide sufficient information in their request for 
concurrence to support their determination of ``may affect, not likely 
to adversely affect'' for listed species and critical habitat in order 
to start the 60-day clock on the Service's written response. The new 
Sec.  402.13(c)(2) also provides for the Service's ability to extend 
the timeline upon mutual agreement with the Federal agency and any 
applicant for up to an additional 60 days. As a result, the entire 
written request and concurrence process is allowed a total of 120 days 
from the Service's receipt of an adequate request for concurrence as 
described in Sec.  402.13(c)(1).
    The Services note that our ability to provide a written response is 
hampered if we do not receive an adequate request for concurrence. 
Ideally, the Services should be able to concur in the Federal action 
agency's well-supported conclusion without having to create unique 
supplemental substantive analyses. The more that the Services have to 
supplement the Federal action agencies' own analyses, the more time it 
will take the Services to determine whether they concur.
    The revised regulation points to the types of information required 
to initiate formal consultation under Sec.  402.14(c)(1) as indicative 
of the type of information that should be included in a request for 
concurrence. We also note in the preamble that the level of detail is 
likely less than that required to initiate formal consultation. Federal 
agencies, designated non-Federal representatives, and applicants 
preparing the request for concurrence should draw upon any technical 
assistance provided by the Services during informal consultation and 
provide the amount and type of information that is commensurate with 
the scope, scale, and complexity of the proposed action and its 
potential effects on listed species and critical habitat. The Services 
hope to gain efficiencies in avoiding unnecessary back and forth 
between the Services and Federal agency by describing the information 
required to obtain the Services' concurrence in the revised regulation. 
Federal agencies submitting requests for concurrence that contain this 
information allow the Services to adequately evaluate whether the

[[Page 44998]]

concurrence is appropriate and readily meet the 60-day deadline.
    Comments regarding a time period for ``sufficiency review'' are 
referring to the Service's review of the request for concurrence. This 
review is to determine if the information provided is sufficient for 
the Services to understand the Federal agency's action and analysis and 
to evaluate whether we can prepare a written response. Consistent with 
the approach for initiation of formal consultation, the Services have 
not included a specific regulatory timeline on any sufficiency review 
of the request for concurrence. Similar to some formal consultation 
initiation packages, some requests for concurrence may not initially 
meet the requirements. The Services are committed to providing review 
of these requests in a timely fashion to alert the Federal agency if 
more information is required to constitute an adequate request for 
concurrence. For formal consultations, the Services typically provide 
this type of sufficiency review within 30 days of receipt of the 
request for formal consultation and an accompanying initiation package. 
A similar timeframe will guide the Services' review of requests for 
concurrence as well.
    Finally, while the revised regulation includes a 60-day deadline 
for the Service's written response to a request for concurrence, we 
allow this much time (and the option to extend) to accommodate the wide 
range in the type of Federal actions for which we receive requests for 
concurrence. We anticipate that those actions that can be responded to 
in less time than 60 days will still receive those quicker concurrence 
responses. We do not expect the revised regulation to result in an 
increase in numbers of concurrence requests such that our ability to 
respond within 60 days will be hindered. In those limited instances in 
which the Services need to extend the deadline for up to 60 additional 
days, the regulation requires the mutual consent of the Federal agency 
and any applicant involved in the consultation.
    Comment: Those commenters opposed to the imposition of a deadline 
generally did so on one of two bases: (1) The data we present indicates 
that we generally complete concurrence requests in a timely fashion and 
so no deadline was necessary, or (2) a deadline could have the effect 
of truncating or hampering the ability of Federal agencies and the 
Services to conduct effective informal consultations generally.
    Response: We have applied the timeline only to the request for 
concurrence aspect of the informal consultation process. This preserves 
the ability of Federal agencies, applicants, non-Federal 
representatives, and the Services to conduct those discussions that 
form the heart of this optional process without a time constraint. 
Although the Services generally provide our response to requests for 
concurrence in a timely fashion, it seems prudent to include both a 
general timeline for concurrence request responses and an option for 
extending that timeline to provide certainty and consistency for 
Federal agencies and applicants planning and proposing actions. 
Additionally, as discussed above, by specifying the information to be 
included in a concurrence request, the Services also anticipate gaining 
additional efficiencies in the informal consultation process.
    Comment: A few commenters were concerned that failure to achieve 
mutual consent for time extensions could force the Services to complete 
their response to a request for concurrence with limited or poor 
information on the action and its effects.
    Response: The Services do not believe this concern will result in 
the outcome predicted by the commenters. Under the new Sec.  
402.13(c)(1), the timeframe for the Services' concurrence response only 
commences once the Services have the information necessary to evaluate 
the Federal agency's request for concurrence.
    Comment: A few commenters advocated that a failure by the Services 
to respond to a request for concurrence within the established deadline 
should result in an assumed concurrence, so the Federal agency may 
proceed with their action.
    Response: The Services decline to make this change. As adopted, the 
regulation requires the Services to provide their response within the 
specified timeframe. Additionally, the concurrence of the Services 
assures the Federal agency that it has appropriately complied with its 
responsibilities under section 7(a)(2).
    Comment: Some commenters questioned the consequence of a non-
concurrence response from the Service--would formal consultation be 
automatically initiated? Others proposed that automatic initiation of 
formal consultation would be the preferred outcome.
    Response: Formal consultation would not automatically be initiated. 
Typically, the next step if the Service does not concur with the 
Federal agency's determination of ``may affect, not likely to adversely 
affect'' would be either the Federal agency requesting formal 
consultation or the continuation of informal consultation. Upon receipt 
of the Service's non-concurrence, there is still an opportunity for the 
Federal agency to further modify either their action or their 
supporting analysis in response to information outlined in the 
Service's response. Such modification could then result in a written 
concurrence from the Service. Further, the Services cannot 
automatically initiate formal consultation if we have not already 
received the information required at Sec.  402.14(c)(1) in the Federal 
agency's request for concurrence at the level of detail necessary to 
initiate formal consultation. While the information provided by the 
Federal agency will have satisfied the requirements of Sec.  
402.13(c)(1) for informal consultation, which generally requires the 
same types of information as Sec.  402.14(c)(1) for formal 
consultation, the Services decline to require that formal consultation 
be automatically initiated upon our non-concurrence, since we cannot 
assume that the information required to initiate formal consultation 
will have been received or even that formal consultation will be 
necessary.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that imposition of a deadline for 
any aspect of informal consultation would increase the workload and 
time constraints on Service staff and that any imposed deadline should 
come with a commensurate increase in Service staff resources to meet 
such obligations.
    Response: The Services do not anticipate either an increase in 
requests for concurrence or time constraints on staff. Currently, the 
Services are generally delivering concurrence request responses in a 
timely fashion, and the adopted regulation would allow for time 
extension requests for actions that require more time to review and 
respond.

Section 402.14--Formal Consultation--General--Including What 
Information is Needed To Initiate Formal Consultation and Considering 
Other Documents as Initiation Packages

    We proposed to revise Sec.  402.14(c) to clarify what is necessary 
to initiate formal consultation. We also proposed to allow the Services 
to consider other documents as initiation packages, when they meet the 
requirements for initiating consultation. It is important to note the 
Services did not propose to require more information than existing 
practice; instead, we clarify in the regulations what is needed to 
initiate consultation in order to improve the consultation process. The 
Services adopt these proposed changes, and one non-substantive edit, in 
this final rule. We

[[Page 44999]]

summarize the comments received on these topics and our responses 
below.
    Comment: Some commenters supported clarifying what is necessary to 
initiate the formal consultation process and the description of what is 
required in the initiation package. Those commenters said the proposed 
revisions, if implemented, could streamline the consultation process 
and reduce the need for extensive communications between the Federal 
agency and the Services to start the consultation process.
    Response: The Services agree that clarifying what is necessary to 
initiate the formal consultation process and the description of what is 
required in the initiation package will help create efficiencies in the 
section 7 consultation process.
    Comment: Commenters suggested clarifying the information to be 
submitted by an applicant to initiate formal consultation (e.g., 
listing the categories of information required, increasing the use of 
data sources like GIS that meet appropriate standards, NEPA analyses, 
conservation work by landowners and agencies, Natural Resource Damage 
Assessment and Restoration Plans to support the initiation package).
    Response: Applicants and designated non-Federal representatives may 
prepare or supply information required as part of the initiation 
package outlined at Sec.  402.14(c)(1). These are the required elements 
necessary to initiate consultation. To be clear, this package is 
submitted to the Services by the Federal agency proposing the action 
and should also include the Federal agency's information and supporting 
analyses for the initiation package. As the Services stated in the 
proposed rule's preamble, in order to initiate formal consultation we 
will consider whatever appropriate information is provided as long as 
the information satisfies the requirements set forth in Sec.  
402.14(c)(1), including the types of information described by the 
commenters.
    Comment: One commenter also suggested that the Services should 
include language in the final rule specifying that we can request 
additional information or documentation if an agency's initial 
submission is deemed inadequate.
    Response: This proposed change is unnecessary. The Services already 
request Federal agencies and applicants provide information necessary 
to initiate consultation when it has not been provided or is unclear in 
the original initiation package. As discussed for informal consultation 
above, the Services typically provide this type of sufficiency review 
within 30 days of receipt of the request for formal consultation and an 
accompanying initiation package. No further regulatory language is 
required to specify that we can request this information because 
initiation of formal consultation is predicated on provision of the 
required information as per Sec.  402.14(c)(1). Further, as already 
provided by Sec.  402.14(d) and (f), additional information may be 
needed or requested by the Services during the formal consultation, 
once it is initiated.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's decision not to require a study under the Federal Power 
Act should not be construed as a failure to meet the information 
requirements to initiate consultation under the Act.
    Response: In general, 50 CFR 402.14(d) provides that the Federal 
agency requesting formal consultation is required to provide the 
Service with the best scientific and commercial data available or which 
can be obtained during the consultation for an adequate review of the 
effects that an action may have upon listed species or critical 
habitat. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's decision whether or 
not to require a study under the Federal Power Act will generally occur 
before that Federal agency would request initiation of formal 
consultation. The requirements for information that the Federal agency 
must submit to the Service to initiate formal consultation are 
described at Sec.  402.14(c)(1). The Service's determination of whether 
or not the Federal agency has provided sufficient information to meet 
the requirements to initiate formal consultation under Sec.  
402.14(c)(1) will depend on the specific information that the Federal 
agency submits and the specific circumstances for each request.
    After formal consultation has been initiated, Sec.  402.14(f) 
provides that the Service may request an extension of formal 
consultation and request that the Federal agency obtain additional data 
to determine how or to what extent the action may affect listed species 
or critical habitat. The Service's request for additional data after 
initiation of formal consultation is not to be construed as the 
Service's opinion that the Federal agency has failed to satisfy the 
information standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act (or Sec.  
402.14(c)(1)). If the Federal agency does not agree to the request for 
extension of formal consultation, the Service will issue a biological 
opinion using the best scientific and commercial data available.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that the Services should clarify 
that, upon the submittal of such information, formal consultation is 
initiated for purposes of starting the clock by which the deadline for 
completing consultation will be measured.
    Response: The prior regulations at Sec.  402.14(c) and (d), and the 
revision to Sec.  402.14(c) in this rule, are clear that a request to 
initiate consultation shall include the list of information provided at 
Sec.  402.14(c)(1) and use the best scientific and commercial data 
available. Requests received that meet these criteria constitute an 
``initiation package'' and thus start the consultation ``clock.'' 
Incomplete requests do not constitute an ``initiation package'' and 
therefore the consultation ``clock'' does not begin until the 
information is received. No further regulatory language is needed.
    Comment: One commenter suggested striking language implying that an 
additional information request by the Service under Sec.  402.14(f) may 
impose a study-funding mandate or obligation upon an applicant or non-
Federal party.
    Response: The Services decline to change the language in Sec.  
402.14(f). This language provides that the Service may request 
additional information necessary to formulate the Service's biological 
opinion once formal consultation has been initiated. Section 402.14(f) 
further states that the responsibility for conducting and funding any 
studies belongs to the Federal agency and the applicant, not the 
Service. Because the ultimate responsibility to comply with section 
7(a)(2) lies with the Federal agency and not the Service, this language 
clarifies that the Service is not responsible for conducting or funding 
the requested studies.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the contents of recovery plans 
do not dictate the outcome of the section 7 consultation process.
    Response: We agree that recovery plans do not dictate the outcome 
of a section 7 consultation. However, the Services believe it is 
appropriate to use relevant information and recommended actions and 
strategies found in recovery plans along with other identified best 
scientific and commercial data available as we consult with Federal 
agencies and applicants. We encourage Federal agencies and applicants 
to become familiar with recovery plans for species they may affect, as 
this can assist them in developing proposed actions that avoid, reduce, 
or offset adverse effects or propose actions that address recommended 
recovery actions.

[[Page 45000]]

    Comment: One commenter suggested support for the proposed 
definition of programmatic consultation and the use of programmatic 
consultations and the addition to Sec.  402.14(c)(4).
    Response: As discussed above, the Services agree that increasing 
the use of programmatic consultations will increase efficiency, reduce 
costs, and still fulfill section 7(a)(2) responsibilities.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Services should commit to 
a set timeframe for notifying the Federal agencies if the initiation 
package is complete for non-major construction activities (e.g., 30 to 
45 days should be sufficient).
    Response: The 1998 Consultation Handbook already specifies that for 
formal consultation leading to the development of a biological opinion 
the Services should, within 30 days, acknowledge the receipt of the 
consultation package and advise if additional information necessary to 
initiate consultation is required. This is the same timeframe for the 
Services to respond to a Federal agency's biological assessment 
prepared for a major construction activity under Sec.  402.12(j). For 
biological assessments, Sec.  402.12(f) provides that ``the contents of 
a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency.'' 
This regulation continues to govern the Federal agency's 
responsibilities for the contents of a biological assessment; however, 
for purposes of initiation of formal consultation under Sec.  
402.14(c)(1), the Federal agency also is required to provide the 
specified information in Sec.  402.14(c)(1) consistent with the nature 
and scope of the action. Although Sec.  402.12(j) allows that ``at the 
option of the Federal agency, formal consultation may be initiated 
under Sec.  402.14(c) concurrently with the submission of the 
assessment,'' this language does not relieve the Federal agency of the 
requirement to submit a complete initiation package per Sec.  
402.14(c)(1), but does give the Federal agency the option to include 
such information along with the contents of their biological 
assessment.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the Services have proposed a 
massive rewrite of Sec.  402.14(c) without explaining to the public the 
underlying rationale for any of the changes in any detail. Thus, the 
proposal fails to meet the basic requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, is not rational, and is arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: The Services disagree that the revisions to Sec.  
402.14(c) are a massive rewrite of the section. As discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, the Services are not requiring more 
information than existing practice. The Services adopt the changes to 
Sec.  402.14(c) based on years of experience implementing section 7 of 
the Act and believe that the revisions will provide clarity to the 
consultation process, increase efficiencies in the process, and meet 
Administrative Procedure Act requirements. The revisions to the 
language are based on the experiences of the Services and are intended 
to better describe the types of information required and the level of 
detail sufficient to initiate formal consultation. This rationale is 
explained in the preamble to the proposed regulations at 83 FR at 35186 
(July 25, 2018).
    Comment: One commenter suggested the Services not include Sec.  
402.14(c)(1)(i)(A) (the purpose of the action) because they do not 
believe the purpose of the action is relevant to the consultation.
    Response: The Services decline to remove the requirement for a 
description of the purpose of the action from the initiation package at 
Sec.  402.14(c)(1). The purpose of the action is important for the 
Services to understand and most effectively consult with Federal 
agencies and applicants in a variety of ways. During consultation, an 
understanding of the intended purpose of the action assists the 
Services in shaping recommendations they may make to avoid, minimize, 
or offset the adverse effects of proposed actions. Further, the purpose 
of the action is an important consideration when determining what 
activities may be caused by the proposed Federal actions and for 
determining what effects may result in take of listed species that is 
incidental to the purpose of the proposed action. Finally, the 
definition of reasonable and prudent alternative at Sec.  402.02 
includes the requirement that the alternative ``can be implemented in a 
manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action.''

Section 402.14--Service Responsibilities--General

    We proposed to revise portions of Sec.  402.14(g) that describe the 
Services' responsibilities during formal consultation. We proposed to 
clarify the analytical steps the Services undertake in formulating a 
biological opinion. In Sec.  402.14(g)(4), we proposed to move the 
instruction that the effects of the action shall be added to the 
environmental baseline from the current definition of ``effects of the 
action'' to where this provision more logically fits with the rest of 
the analytical process. We have adopted these proposed changes in this 
final rule and provide the comments received on these changes and our 
responses below.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Services revise Sec.  
402.14(g)(4) to add text to reiterate the appropriate test for jeopardy 
as follows: ``Formulate its biological opinion as to whether the 
action, taken together with cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of listed species by appreciably reducing the 
likelihood of both survival and recovery of the species, and not 
recovery alone, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat.''
    Response: The term ``jeopardize the continued existence'' is 
already defined in regulations at Sec.  402.02. All subsequent uses of 
this terminology are referenced to that definition and thus no further 
clarification is needed in Sec.  402.14(g)(4).
    Comment: A couple of commenters suggested the Services clarify that 
nothing in the Act requires Service staff to utilize worst-case 
scenarios or unduly conservative modeling or assumptions.
    Response: The commenters are correct that nothing in the Act 
specifically requires the Services to utilize a ``worst-case scenario'' 
or make unduly conservative modeling assumptions. The Act does require 
the use of the best scientific and commercial data available by all 
parties and obligates Federal agencies to insure their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical 
habitat. The best scientific and commercial data available is not 
limited to peer-reviewed, empirical, or quantitative data but may 
include the knowledge and expertise of Service staff, Federal action 
agency staff, applicants, and other experts, as appropriate, applied to 
the questions posed by the section 7(a)(2) analysis when information 
specific to an action's consequences or specific to species response or 
extinction risk is unavailable. Methods such as conceptual or 
quantitative models informed by the best available information and 
appropriate assumptions may be required to bridge information gaps in 
order to render the Services' opinion regarding the likelihood of 
jeopardy or adverse modification. Expert elicitation and structured 
decision-making approaches are other examples of approaches that may 
also be appropriate to address information gaps. In all instances, 
chosen scenarios or assumptions should be appropriate to assist the 
Federal agency in their obligation to insure their action is not likely 
to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat.

[[Page 45001]]

    Comment: Commenters support expanded opportunities for 
participation by States, applicants, and designated non-Federal 
representatives in the section 7(a)(2) consultation process, including 
the review of the underlying data and scientific analyses being 
considered and greater input into any potential jeopardy or adverse 
modification finding, the development of reasonable and prudent 
alternatives and minimization measures, and all parts of the draft 
biological opinion.
    Response: The Services already involve designated non-Federal 
representatives and applicants during key points of the consultation 
development process and will continue to do so as appropriate. Federal 
action agencies are best positioned to engage and encourage the 
involvement of applicants and designated non-Federal representatives in 
the review of draft biological opinions. The consultation process is 
intended to assist the Federal action agency in meeting its section 
7(a)(2) obligations under the Act. Applicants and designated non-
Federal representatives play an important role in this process. States 
may be engaged by Federal action agencies and applicants during the 
development of the proposed actions and supporting analyses.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Federal agency or 
applicants be involved in the development of ``Reasonable Prudent 
Measures'' and/or ``Terms and Conditions'' as needed to ensure they are 
implementable and do not require major alterations of the proposed 
action of a plan or project in terms of design, location, scope, and 
results.
    Response: The Services already involve Federal action agencies and 
applicants during key points of the consultation development process 
and will continue to do so as appropriate. Federal action agencies are 
best positioned to engage and encourage the involvement of applicants 
and designated non-Federal representatives in the review of draft 
biological opinions, including draft incidental take statements.
    Comment: One commenter requested that when proposed actions have 
the potential to affect tribal rights or interests, formal consultation 
section pursuant to Sec.  402.14(l)(3) should require disclosure of all 
information to affected tribes, adherence to policies regarding 
consultation with Native American governments, and an analysis of how 
the action or reasonable and prudent alternatives comport with the 
conservation necessity standards embodied in Secretarial Order 3206, 
NOAA Procedures for Government-to-Government Consultation with 
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, and 
the FWS Native American Policy.
    Response: As discussed above, the Services will continue to comply 
with Secretarial Order 3206, NOAA Procedures, and the FWS Native 
American Policy and other applicable tribal policies as we implement 
our section 7 responsibilities.
    Comment: One commenter supports the codification that the Services 
will give ``appropriate consideration to any beneficial actions as 
proposed or taken by the Federal agency or applicant, including any 
actions taken prior to the initiation of the consultation.''
    Response: Most of the quoted language, with the exception of ``as 
proposed,'' is already included in Sec.  402.14(g)(8) and has been 
retained in the revisions to that provision. This final rule codifies 
the language the commenter supported.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of a 
programmatic consultation should be modified to ``clarify that the 
Services may utilize programmatic consultations and initiate concurrent 
consultations for multiple similar agency actions.''
    Response: The adopted definition of programmatic consultation 
already encompasses the commenters' request, making the proposed change 
unnecessary. As discussed above, programmatic consultations are 
flexible consultation tools that may be developed based on the 
circumstances of the proposed action and the Federal agency(ies) 
involved.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the consultation ``clock'' 
should start at the point the submission of a written request for 
formal consultation is transmitted to the Service with a certification 
that it has transmitted to the Service all of the relevant and 
available information upon which the action agency's request for 
consultation and opinion has been made.
    Response: The Federal agency is obligated to provide the 
information necessary to initiate formal consultation. It is the 
Services' responsibility to determine that we have sufficient 
information to initiate formal consultation. The adopted language at 
Sec.  402.14(c)(1) defines the information necessary to initiate formal 
consultation. We adopt this list to clarify and reduce confusion about 
the necessary information and create greater efficiencies in the 
section 7 consultation process. Starting the ``clock'' at the point 
suggested by the commenter truncates the time necessary to obtain 
needed information if it was not in fact provided, reduces the ability 
of the Services to adequately coordinate with the Federal agency, non-
Federal representative and/or applicant, and could actually lengthen 
the consultation process because of the need on the part of the 
Services to request additional information during consultation.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Services have not 
clarified the language pursuant to formal consultations (Sec.  402.14) 
and that measures intended to avoid, minimize, or offset effects of an 
action are not required elements of an ``initiation package'' submitted 
by a Federal agency for the consultation.
    Response: Consistent with the Services' existing consultation 
approaches, we are adopting revisions to Sec.  402.14(c) to ensure that 
a Federal agency submits an adequate description of the proposed 
action, including available information about any measures intended to 
avoid, minimize, or offset effects of the proposed action. The request 
for a description of measures to avoid, minimize, or offset project 
impacts applies in those cases where these types of measures are 
included by the Federal agency or applicant as part of the proposed 
action and is not intended to require these types of measures for all 
proposed actions. Provided the Federal agency submits the information 
required by Sec.  402.14(c)(1), the Services will take into 
consideration the effects of the action as proposed, both beneficial 
and adverse.

Section 402.14(g)(4)--Service Responsibilities--Clarifying the 
Analytical Steps by Which the Services Integrate and Synthesize Their 
Analyses To Reach Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Determinations

    In Sec.  402.14(g)(4), we proposed revisions to better reflect the 
manner in which the Services integrate and synthesize their analyses of 
effects of the action with cumulative effects, the environmental 
baseline, and status of the species and critical habitat to reach our 
jeopardy and adverse modification determinations. This proposed change 
reflects the Services' existing approach, and we adopt those proposed 
changes in this final rule. The comments and our responses on those 
changes are below.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the proposed language at Sec.  
402.14(g)(4) because it allows other agencies and the public to 
understand the process, and the expectations, when biological opinions 
are being developed.
    Response: The Services agree that the proposed language at Sec.  
402.14(g)(4) will

[[Page 45002]]

clarify and support gains in efficiencies in the section 7 consultation 
process.
    Comment: Commenters stated that Sec.  402.14(g) does not explain 
the meaning of the phrase ``current status of the listed species or 
critical habitat'' in relationship to how we assess jeopardy and 
destruction/adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Response: The adopted regulations are not intended to change the 
manner in which the Services use the status of the listed species or 
critical habitat when completing its jeopardy and destruction/adverse 
modification analyses. Further discussion on how we use the current 
status of listed species and critical habitat can be found in the 
Services' 1998 Consultation Handbook, especially Chapter 4--Formal 
Consultation.
    Comment: One commenter urges the Services to clarify that the final 
rule does not require any increase in the level of detail provided in 
the initiation package.
    Response: The Services' adopted regulatory text at Sec.  
402.14(c)(1) clarifies what type of information is necessary to 
initiate the formal consultation process. Although we have added 
language to describe the level of detail needed to initiate 
consultation, this level of detail has not changed from the 
expectations of the preceding Sec.  402.14(c) regulations and should be 
commensurate with the scope of the proposed action and the effects of 
the action.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that Sec.  402.14(g) should 
include consideration and deference to tribal management plans to 
protect listed species.
    Response: Consistent with Secretarial Order 3206, including 
Appendix Section 3(c), the Services provide timely notification to 
affected tribes when the Services are aware that a proposed Federal 
agency action subject to formal consultation may affect tribal 
interests. Among other things, the Services facilitate the use of the 
best scientific and commercial data available by soliciting 
information, traditional knowledge, and comments from, and utilize the 
expertise of, affected Tribes. The Services also encourage the Federal 
agency to involve affected Tribes in the consultation process, which 
may involve consideration of tribal management plans to protect listed 
species and to consider such plans in the formulation of reasonable and 
prudent alternatives.
    Comment: One commenter believed that Sec.  402.14(g)(4) should be 
clarified to reflect that it is the responsibility of a project 
proponent under section 7(a)(2) of the Act to avoid or offset 
prohibited effects associated with the incremental impact of the 
proposed action that is the subject of consultation.
    Response: Section 402.14(g)(4) describes the final step in the 
Services' analytical approach in evaluating a proposed action. 
Requiring every proposed action to avoid or offset the incremental 
impact of the proposed action would be inconsistent with the applicable 
standards for determining jeopardy and destruction or adverse 
modification under the Act.
Clarifications to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) Regarding Whether and How the 
Service Should Consider Measures Included in a Proposed Action That Are 
Intended To Avoid, Minimize, or Offset Adverse Effects to Listed 
Species or Critical Habitat
    We proposed clarifications to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) regarding whether 
and how the Services should consider measures included in a proposed 
action that are intended to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects 
to listed species or critical habitat. Federal agencies often include 
these types of measures as part of the proposed action. However, the 
Services' reliance on a Federal agency's commitment that the measures 
will actually occur as proposed has been repeatedly questioned in 
court. The resulting judicial decisions have created confusion 
regarding what level of certainty is required to demonstrate that a 
measure will in fact be implemented before the Services can consider it 
in a biological opinion. In particular, the Ninth Circuit has held that 
even an expressed sincere commitment by a Federal agency or applicant 
to implement future improvements to benefit a species must be rejected 
absent ``specific and binding plans'' with ``a clear, definite 
commitment of resources for future improvements.'' Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n 
v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2008). 
To address this issue, we are proceeding with the revisions to Sec.  
402.14(g)(8), including the changes described in Discussion of Changes 
from Proposed Rule, above. We summarize the comments and provide our 
responses on the changes to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) below.
    Comment: Some commenters opposed the changes and recommended that 
the text be modified in the final rule to specify that the action 
agency and/or applicant must establish specific plans and/or resource 
commitments to ensure that the conservation measures are implemented. 
In their view, if the proponent agency expects credit for proposing 
beneficial actions, then there must be additional assurance that those 
actions will take place. Some commenters stated the proposal was 
irrational and inconsistent with case law, including Ninth Circuit 
precedent in Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 
F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008), and will add further confusion to the case 
law on the issue.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters' recommendation to create 
a heightened standard of documentation, such as requiring binding plans 
or clear resource commitments, before the Services can consider the 
effects of measures included in a proposed action to avoid, minimize, 
or offset adverse effects. The revisions to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) are 
intended to address situations where a Federal agency includes measures 
to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects to species and/or 
critical habitat as part of the proposed action they submit to the 
Services for consultation, or where such measures are included as part 
of a reasonable and prudent alternative.
    Section 7 of the Act places obligations on Federal agencies to 
insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. A Federal 
agency fulfils this substantive obligation ``in consultation with'' and 
``with the assistance of'' the Services. In situations where an adverse 
effect to listed species or critical habitat is likely, the 
consultation with the Services results in a biological opinion that 
sets forth the Services' opinion detailing how the agency action 
affects the species or its critical habitat. Ultimately, after the 
Services render an opinion, the Federal agency must still determine how 
to proceed with its action in a manner that is consistent with avoiding 
jeopardy and destruction or adverse modification. Thus, the Act leaves 
the final responsibility for compliance with section 7(a)(2)'s 
substantive requirements with the Federal action agencies, not the 
Services.
    Our regulatory revisions are consistent with the statutory scheme 
by recognizing that the Federal agencies authorizing, funding, and 
carrying out the action are in the best position to determine whether 
measures they propose to undertake, or adopt as part of a reasonable 
and prudent alternative, are sufficiently certain to occur. Put simply, 
if the commitment to implement a measure is clearly presented to the 
Services as part of the proposed action consistent with Sec.  
[thinsp]402.14(c)(1), then the Services will provide our opinion on the 
effects of the action if implemented as proposed.

[[Page 45003]]

    We do not interpret the statutory phrases ``in consultation with'' 
and ``with the assistance of'' to require the Services to ignore 
beneficial effects of measures included in the proposed action to 
avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects unless action agencies meet 
some heightened bar of documentation regarding their commitment. To the 
contrary, we interpret the Act as requiring the Services to consider 
the effects of the proposed action in its entirety, including aspects 
of the proposed action with adverse or beneficial effects.
    Some courts have inappropriately conflated the Services' role with 
that of the action agency by concluding the Services cannot lawfully 
consider measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects unless we second guess the intent and veracity of an action 
agency's commitments. The resulting case law has led to confusion. For 
instance, the Ninth Circuit has held that even an expressed sincere 
commitment by a Federal agency or applicant to implement future 
improvements to benefit a species must be rejected absent ``specific 
and binding plans'' with ``a clear, definite commitment of resources 
for future improvements.'' Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine 
Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2008). More recently 
the Ninth Circuit held that its ``precedents require an agency to 
identify and guarantee'' measures to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects only to the extent the measures ``target certain or existing 
negative effects'' of the proposed action. Defs. of Wildlife v. Zinke, 
856 F.3d 1248, 1258 (9th Cir. 2017). In some cases, courts have also 
stated that ``mitigation measures supporting a biological opinion's no-
jeopardy conclusion must be `reasonably specific, certain to occur, and 
capable of implementation; they must be subject to deadlines or 
otherwise-enforceable obligations; and most important, they must 
address the threats to the species in a way that satisfies the jeopardy 
and adverse modification standards.' Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 
Rumsfeld, 198 F.Supp.2d 1139, 1152 (D.Ariz. 2002) (citing Sierra Club 
v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1987)).'' Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands 
Ctr. v. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., 99 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1055 
(N.D. Cal. 2015). However, the Ninth Circuit has also indicated that 
the question of whether measures to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects are sufficiently enforceable turns on whether or not the 
measures are included in the proposed action, concluding that ``[i]f 
[the measures] are part of the project design, the [Act]'s sequential, 
interlocking procedural provisions ensure recourse if the parties do 
not honor or enforce the agreement, and so ensure the protection of 
listed species.'' Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land 
Mgmt., 698 F.3d 1101, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). We disagree with the 
commenter that the regulatory revisions to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) will add 
to the confusion of the current case law on the subject. Instead, we 
believe it will resolve confusion by explaining our interpretation of 
the statute.
    The regulatory change to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) is to make it clear 
that, just like aspects of the proposed action with adverse effects, 
the Services are not required to obtain binding plans or other such 
documentation prior to being able to lawfully evaluate the effects of 
an action as proposed, including any measures included in the proposed 
action that would avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects. However, 
the Services are also moving forward with revisions to Sec.  
[thinsp]402.14(c)(1). Those revisions require a Federal agency seeking 
to initiate formal consultation to provide a description of the 
proposed action, including any measures intended to avoid, minimize, or 
offset effects of the proposed action. If the description of proposed 
measures fails to include the level of detail necessary for the 
Services to understand the action and evaluate its effects to listed 
species or critical habitat, then the Services will be unable to take 
into account those effects when developing our biological opinion. To 
avoid confusion and reinforce that an appropriate level of specificity 
regarding the description of measures included in the proposed action 
may be necessary to provide sufficient detail to assess the effects of 
the action on listed species and critical habitat, the Services 
eliminated the reference to ``specific'' plans in our final revisions 
to Sec.  402.14(g)(8). The Services do not intend to hold these actions 
to either a higher or lower standard than any other type of action or 
measure proposed by a Federal agency. Any type of action proposed by a 
Federal agency receives a presumption that it will occur, but it must 
also be described in sufficient detail that the Services can both 
understand the action and evaluate its adverse effects and beneficial 
effects.
    The Services also retain the discretion to advise Federal agencies 
about all aspects of measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset 
adverse effects to assist them in making an informed determination 
regarding compliance with section 7 and to assist in achieving the 
greatest conservation benefit. Moreover, the Services retain the 
discretion to develop reasonable and prudent measures and associated 
terms and conditions related to implementation of the proposed action, 
including the proposed conservation measures, if appropriate (e.g., 
minimizes the impact of the incidental take and is consistent with 
Sec.  402.14(i)(2)). Therefore, the revisions to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) in 
this final rule do not undermine the Services' ability to provide 
consultation and assistance to Federal agencies related to measures 
proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects. Rather, the 
revisions merely clarify that Federal agencies seeking to engage in 
section 7 consultation with the Services are in the best position to 
define the action being proposed and ultimately comply with section 7's 
substantive mandate to avoid jeopardy and destruction or adverse 
modification.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that there are examples of projects 
where resource impacts occurred, but that years later, measures to 
offset those adverse effects had not been implemented. According to 
some commenters, history provides numerous examples of action agencies 
(or the Services themselves in the development of reasonable and 
prudent alternatives): (1) Promising more than they could deliver in 
order to alleviate the harmful effects of a proposed action; and/or (2) 
making optimistic assumptions about the efficacy of the measures that 
fall far short of what's needed to avoid jeopardy. Therefore, some 
commenters believed the Services should require that all measures 
proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects demonstrate 
clear and binding plans with financial assurances.
    Response: As described above, the regulatory revisions in Sec.  
402.14(g)(8) are consistent with the statutory text and retain the 
Federal action agencies' substantive duty to insure that their actions 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species 
or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 
habitat. An action agency that fails to implement the measures proposed 
to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects risks violating the 
substantive provisions of the Act, engaging in conduct prohibited by 
section 9, and increasing its vulnerability to enforcement action by 
the Services or citizen suits under section 11(g) of the Act. This is 
particularly true if reinitiation of consultation was required based on 
the failure to implement a proposed measure and the Federal agency 
fails to reinitiate consultation. For instance, our regulations at 
Sec.  402.16

[[Page 45004]]

require reinitiation of consultation if the amount or extent of take 
specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded, if new 
information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered, and if the action is subsequently modified in a manner that 
causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not 
considered in the biological opinion. Failure to implement a measure 
proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects could implicate 
those reinitiation triggers. Accordingly, we do not believe the 
revisions will encourage promises of implementing measures to avoid, 
minimize, or offset adverse effects that are unrealistic or 
unachievable.
    Regarding the potential for overly optimistic assumptions about the 
efficacy of measures included in the proposed action to avoid, 
minimize, or offset adverse effects, nothing in this rule alters the 
requirement under the Act to use the best scientific and commercial 
data available when the Services evaluate the effects of a proposed 
action, including measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset 
adverse effects. This rule also requires Federal agencies to submit 
information about the measures being proposed to avoid, minimize, or 
offset adverse effects (Sec.  402.14(c)(1)) at a level of detail 
sufficient for the Services to understand the action and evaluate the 
effects of the action. Thus, we anticipate that, if anything, this rule 
will improve the availability and quality of information that the 
Services can use to evaluate the efficacy of proposed actions, 
including measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects.
    Comment: Some commenters stated support for the proposed changes 
and said the proposed text would incentivize Federal agencies and 
project proponents to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or offset 
adverse effects and may result in greater conservation. Other 
commenters noted that the applicant and Federal action agency are in 
the best position to determine the scope of the proposed action and 
what avoidance, minimization, or other measures can be implemented 
during the duration of the project, and those measures will be 
supported by the ``best scientific and commercial data available.'' 
Some commenters agreed that the proposed changes help to clarify that 
the Services are not required seek ``binding'' plans or a clear and 
definite commitment of resources before measures included in a proposed 
action can be considered by the Services.
    Response: The Services appreciate the comments. We believe the 
regulatory changes will, under certain circumstances, encourage Federal 
agencies and applicants to commit to implementing measures intended to 
avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects. We also agree that the 
applicant and Federal action agency are in the best position to 
evaluate what commitments can be made as part of the proposed action. 
Section 7 consultations will continue to be based upon the best 
scientific and commercial data available.
    Comment: Some commenters asserted that the Services should require 
specific steps of Federal agencies before considering the effects of 
measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects, 
including: (1) Having those actions included in the actual project 
description in NEPA documents or the biological assessment; (2) having 
the Federal agency determine the actions are within their authority; 
(3) requiring signed agreements between the agency and other 
cooperators if there is off-site restoration; and (4) having a 
reinitiation of consultation clause if the actions are not implemented. 
Other commenters felt that the Services should determine that the plan 
to avoid, minimize or offset the effects of a proposed action is 
credible, that the plan for funding such measures is reasonable, and 
that there are no known obstacles that may keep the measures from being 
carried out. Some stated that measures to offset adverse effects should 
outline the amount and type of measures that will be carried out and 
what mechanism will be used to satisfy the commitment (e.g., 
conservation bank). If applicants will be undertaking the measure 
directly, one commenter believed the Services should approve the final 
plan, and it should be attached or included by reference. One commenter 
also stated that all plans should take into account established agency 
guidance on the use of conservation banks and offsetting losses of 
aquatic resources.
    Response: We decline to alter our proposed regulatory text in the 
manner suggested on these issues for a variety of reasons. First, this 
rule modifies Sec.  402.14(c) to require information about measures 
included in a proposed action to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects as a prerequisite to initiating formal consultation. Therefore, 
there is no need to specify that the description of those measures also 
be included in the project design description in a NEPA document or 
biological assessment, although we anticipate such measures would also 
be described in those documents. Similarly, the information required by 
Sec.  402.14(c) will be sufficient to address the commenter's point 
about needing information about the type, amount, and mechanisms by 
which measures will be carried out. In our experience, a Federal agency 
also would not include a measure as part of its proposed action if it 
lacked authority to do so, and we do not need additional regulatory 
provisions to address that concern. Regarding signed agreements with 
cooperators if off-site measures are involved, the Federal agency 
proposing the action is responsible for determining the appropriate 
nature and timing of agreements with cooperators. Finally, our 
regulations already specify the triggers for reinitiation. Those 
triggers are adequate to require reinitiation in circumstances where 
measures are not implemented as proposed and where the failure to 
implement would alter the effects to listed species or critical 
habitat. As described elsewhere in our responses to comments, the 
Services decline to add additional steps, such as the need for a 
Service-approved plan or additional documentation prior to the 
Services' evaluation of the action as proposed. We acknowledge agency 
guidance on measures intended to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects can be useful for numerous reasons and could help inform a 
Federal agency or applicant regarding best practices for ensuring the 
success of proposed measures, but we decline to require the use of 
specific agency guidance on measures to avoid, minimize, or offset 
adverse effects, which can vary over time.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the Services have few 
resources dedicated to compliance monitoring and that a Federal 
agency's failure to complete the action as proposed cannot adequately 
be considered through reinitiation of consultation. Reinitiation would 
not ensure that implementation of the action up until the point at 
which the agency determines it will not implement a measure avoids 
jeopardy. The second option mentioned, complying with an incidental 
take statement, would provide no assurance that the measure is 
implemented, unless it is actually included as a reasonable and prudent 
measure as part of the incidental take statement. Another commenter 
stated the proposal in essence means the Services are not required to 
police the Federal agency, which could provoke conflict among and 
between the Services and agencies and require the expenditure of 
additional resources by agencies apart from the Service.

[[Page 45005]]

    Response: Nothing in this final rule reduces the Services' 
resources available for compliance monitoring or reduces the Services' 
ability to require monitoring and reporting requirements as part of an 
incidental take statement. The Services regularly impose monitoring and 
implementation reporting requirements to validate that the effects of a 
proposed action are consistent with what was analyzed in the biological 
opinion, and we intend for that practice to continue. Therefore, the 
final rule will not interject new elements that might provoke conflict 
among and between the Services and Federal agencies.
    As described above, an action agency that fails to implement the 
measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects risks 
violating the substantive provisions of the Act, engaging in conduct 
prohibited by section 9, and increasing its vulnerability to 
enforcement action by the Services or citizen suits under section 11(g) 
of the Act. This is particularly true if reinitiation of consultation 
was required based on the failure to implement a proposed measure and 
the Federal agency fails to reinitiate consultation.
    We disagree with the commenter that reinitiation of consultation 
fails to ensure that implementation of the action avoids jeopardy up 
until the point at which the agency determines it will be unable to 
implement a measure intended to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects. When the Services consider the effects of proposed actions on 
listed species and critical habitat, that process includes a 
consideration of the timing and scope of activities that will be 
implemented. If a proposed action later changes due to measures not 
being carried out, the adverse effects up until that point must still 
avoid jeopardy and destruction or adverse modification. Therefore, we 
believe reinitiation is an appropriate response in the event an action 
is subsequently modified in a manner that has effects to species or 
critical habitat that were not previously considered. Once consultation 
is reinitiated, an action agency must not make irreversible or 
irretrievable commitments of resources that will foreclose the 
formulation of reasonable and prudent alternatives, and the substantive 
duty to avoid jeopardizing listed species and destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat remains. If adverse effects have occurred, 
those will be taken into account in the reinitiated consultation and 
the formulation of reasonable and prudent alternatives if necessary. 
Given the action agencies' substantive obligations under section 7, we 
do not anticipate our proposed changes to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) will 
result in measures intended to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects being proposed with deceptive intentions.
    With regard to the incidental take statement, the Services must 
make a determination on what reasonable and prudent measures are 
necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of take on a case-by-
case basis. It would be inappropriate to determine what reasonable and 
prudent measures and implementing terms and conditions are necessary or 
appropriate, including reporting requirements to monitor progress, 
before the Services evaluate the effects of a particular proposed 
action.
    Comment: One commenter stated that if the Services are not required 
to obtain proof of ``specific and binding plans'' for implementation of 
minimization measures it would undermine the credibility of effects 
determinations and complicate the identification of the environmental 
baseline in future consultations, to the potential disadvantage of 
future project proponents. Other commenters felt that as a result of 
this proposed change, there will likely be situations in which the 
Services make decisions about the adverse impacts of an agency action 
based on incomplete information with no assurance the beneficial action 
will occur or create any benefit to species or habitat to offset 
adverse impacts.
    Response: We disagree that the regulatory revisions will undermine 
the credibility of effects determinations. These regulations do not 
alter the requirement for Federal agencies and the Services to use the 
best scientific and commercial data available. As described above, the 
information needed to initiate consultation now includes a requirement 
to describe any measures included to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects. Thus, the Services will not be evaluating the effects of 
proposed actions with insufficient information. We do not interpret the 
Act as requiring a heightened standard of assurances, beyond a sincere 
commitment and inclusion of a proposed measure as part of the action 
under consultation, before the Services can lawfully evaluate the 
effects of the action.
    The revisions to Sec.  402.14(g)(8) also will not complicate the 
identification of the environmental baseline to the disadvantage of 
future project proponents. The relevant portions of the environmental 
baseline definition are unchanged in this final rule and will continue 
to take into account the past and present impacts of all Federal, 
State, or private actions and other human activities in the action 
area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the 
action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 
consultation, and the impact of State or private actions that are 
contemporaneous with the consultation in process. In any circumstance 
where a proposed action is subsequently modified and results in effects 
not previously considered, reinitiation of consultation would likely be 
required and would be accounted for in the environmental baseline of 
future consultations as appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter remained concerned that, even with the 
proposed clarification, the Services may continue to exclude from 
consideration conservation measures that are funded by the applicant 
but undertaken by another entity or conducted by a related party. The 
commenter therefore requested that the proposed regulatory text in 50 
CFR 402.14(g)(8) be further modified to state that ``. . . the Service 
will use the best scientific and commercial data available and will 
give appropriate consideration to any beneficial actions as proposed, 
or taken, funded or otherwise sponsored by the Federal agency, 
applicant, or related party, including any actions taken prior to the 
initiation of consultation. Measures included in the proposed action or 
a reasonable and prudent alternative that are intended to avoid, 
minimize, or offset the effects of an action are considered like other 
portions of the action regardless of their geographic proximity to the 
proposed action, and do not require any additional demonstration of 
specific binding plans or a clear, definite commitment of resources.''
    Response: We appreciate the comment but decline to adopt regulatory 
language that would categorically expand the scope of beneficial 
actions due ``appropriate consideration'' under Sec.  402.14(g)(8) to 
include actions by ``related parties.'' Such a regulatory change is 
unnecessary. Beneficial actions taken or proposed in consultation by 
any entity are considered by the Services when developing its 
biological opinion by being included in the environmental baseline, 
cumulative effects, or the effects of the action under consultation, as 
appropriate.
    We also decline to categorically include revisions that would 
expand the scope of measures that would be ``considered like other 
portions of the action'' to include those actions ``regardless of their 
geographic

[[Page 45006]]

proximity to the proposed action.'' If a proposed measure is not within 
the geographic proximity of the other components of the proposed 
action, but would nonetheless have effects to listed species or 
critical habitat, then the action area would include the area affected 
by the proposed offsite measures and the effects to listed species and 
critical habitat would be considered during consultation to the extent 
they are relevant. No regulatory change is needed for that to occur.
    In addition, from a critical habitat perspective, insertion of the 
phrase ``regardless of their geographic proximity to the proposed 
action'' would be inappropriate because measures implemented outside 
critical habitat would often not offset the effects of the Federal 
action on that critical habitat. This is because critical habitat is a 
specifically designated area that identifies those areas of habitat 
believed to be essential to the species' conservation.
    Comment: One commenter stated concerns about requiring the 
information necessary to initiate formal consultation to include ``the 
specific components of the action and how they will be carried out.'' 
With respect to beneficial actions, this provision is likely too 
restrictive.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concern but decline to 
alter the scope of information necessary to initial formal consultation 
pursuant to Sec.  [thinsp]402.14(c)(1). We continue to acknowledge, 
like we stated in the proposed rule, that there may be situations where 
a Federal agency may propose a suite or program of measures that will 
be implemented over time. The future components of the proposed action 
often have some uncertainty with regard to the specific details of 
projects that will be implemented. Nevertheless, a Federal agency or 
applicant may be fully capable of committing to specific levels and 
types of actions (e.g., habitat restoration) and specific populations 
or species that will be the focus of the effort. If the Federal agency 
provides information in sufficient detail for the Services to 
meaningfully evaluate the effects of measures proposed to avoid, 
minimize, or offset adverse effects, the Services will consider the 
effects of the proposed measures as part of the action during a 
consultation. We believe the information requirements contained in 
Sec.  [thinsp]402.14(c)(1) will help provide the necessary detail to 
evaluate the effects of measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset 
adverse effects.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that the Act requires all Federal 
agencies to ``insure'' their actions will avoid jeopardy and 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Mere promises 
of future benefits to species and their habitat in order to offset 
present adverse impacts does not meet this ``insure'' standard, which 
Congress characterized as the ``institutionalization of caution.''
    Response: As described in the responses to comments above, this 
final rule does not alter the obligation for Federal agencies to 
``insure'' their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The Services will 
continue to consult with, and provide assistance to, Federal agencies 
in their compliance with their requirements under section 7, but the 
Services are not required by the Act to obtain a specific demonstration 
of the binding nature of a Federal agencies' commitments prior to 
evaluating the effect of those commitments and providing our biological 
opinion. If a measure proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects is essential for avoiding jeopardy or destruction or adverse 
modification, then implementation of that measure must occur at a time 
when the biological benefits to the species and/or habitat are 
occurring in a temporal sequence such that adverse effects cannot first 
result in jeopardy, but then subsequently be remediated to avoid 
jeopardy. Accordingly, the Services do not rely on promises of future 
actions to offset present adverse effects in a manner that would be 
inconsistent with Federal agencies ensuring that their actions are 
consistent with the substantive requirements of section 7.
    Comment: One commenter stated the proposed change is a confusing 
false equivalency that reduces the ability of the Services to evaluate 
the likely impact of the action by obscuring whether measures will in 
fact take place. A preferable alternative would be to clarify, when 
some action ambiguity is warranted, that consultation can still be 
completed as long as avoidance, minimization, and offsetting 
commitments are made for each contingency.
    Response: We disagree that allowing for ambiguity and creating 
alternative contingency requirements is a preferable way for the 
Services to evaluate the effects of a proposed action. We consult on 
the action as proposed by the Federal agency and will only consider the 
effects of measures intended to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse 
effects if presented with sufficient information to meaningfully 
evaluate the effects of the action.
    Comment: One commenter stated that measures to avoid, minimize, or 
offset adverse effects impose additional costs and burdens on an agency 
or applicant undertaking a project. Whereas the project proponent wants 
to engage in the main action, it is undertaking the other measures only 
to avoid a jeopardy conclusion for the main action. In the commenter's 
view, the Services cannot rationally ignore this plain difference in 
the motivations for the main action and those intended to offset the 
harms of that action.
    Response: If a Federal agency or applicant proposes measures to 
avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects as part of its proposed 
action because it is necessary to avoid jeopardy, we believe the 
motivations for undertaking the measure, such as the need to avoid 
violations of the Act, are clear. We decline to probe the subjective 
motivations and second guess the commitments contained in an action 
under consultation, because doing so is unnecessary to fulfill the 
Services' role under the Act.
    Comment: One commenter stated the Services' proposed changes would 
render the Services unable to even raise concerns about the likelihood 
of implementation of beneficial effects of measures proposed to avoid, 
minimize, or offset adverse effects when they evaluate a proposed 
action to determine whether it will jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Some 
commenters asserted the proposed rule provides the ``benefit of the 
doubt'' to Federal action agencies' promises to implement beneficial 
measures as part of the action and creates an irrational double 
standard for evaluating the effects of the action such that Federal 
beneficial proposals enjoy a favorable presumption in the Services' 
analysis, but harmful effects and activities must meet a more rigorous 
test before they will be considered.
    Response: We disagree that the changes would render the Services 
unable to raise concerns with Federal agencies with respect to measures 
proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects. As described 
above, the Services retain the discretion to advise Federal agencies 
about all aspects of their proposed action to assist them in making an 
informed determination regarding compliance with section 7 and in 
achieving the greatest conservation benefit. However, the Federal 
agency is ultimately responsible for describing its proposed action and 
providing the information required by Sec.  402.14(c)(1). If the 
Federal agency provides information in sufficient detail

[[Page 45007]]

for the Services to meaningfully evaluate the effects of measures 
proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects, the Services 
will consider the effects of the proposed measures during a 
consultation. Once consultation is initiated, the Services apply the 
same definition of ``effects of the action'' adopted in this final rule 
both to the portions of the action with adverse effects and those 
portions of the proposed action intended to avoid, minimize, or offset 
adverse effects. Accordingly, the Services will evaluate all 
consequences of all portions of the proposed action that would not 
occur ``but for'' the proposed action and are reasonably certain to 
occur as effects of the action. Therefore, the changes to Sec.  
402.14(g)(8) do not create an irrational double standard. To the 
contrary, the changes eliminate a double standard such that all aspects 
of the proposed action are treated the same by assuming the action will 
be implemented as proposed in its entirety. In other words, the 
proposed avoidance, minimization or offsetting measures will not be 
forced to meet a heightened threshold but will instead be held to the 
same standard as the portions of the proposed action likely to result 
in adverse effects.
    We disagree that the changes adopted in this final rule are 
inconsistent with the Act because they fail to provide the ``benefit of 
the doubt to the species.'' That phrase originated in a Conference 
Report that accompanied the 1979 amendments to the Act. Relevant to 
section 7, those amendments changed the statutory text at section 
7(a)(2) from ``will not jeopardize'' to the current wording of ``is not 
likely to jeopardize.'' The Conference Report explained that the change 
in the statutory language was necessary to prevent the Services from 
having to issue jeopardy determinations whenever an action agency could 
not ``guarantee with certainty'' that their action would not jeopardize 
listed species. The Conference Report sought to explain that this 
change in language would not have a negative impact on species: ``This 
language continues to give the benefit of the doubt to the species, and 
it would continue to place the burden on the action agency to 
demonstrate to the consulting agency that its action will not violate 
Section 7(a)(2).'' H. Conf. Rep. No. 96-697, 96th Cong., 1st. Sess. 12, 
reprinted in [1979] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, 2572, 2576. The use of 
the words ``benefit of the doubt to the species'' in the Conference 
Report appears intended to provide reassurance that the statutory 
language, as amended, would remain protective of the species. At most, 
the language seems to indicate that the statutory language ``is not 
likely to jeopardize'' continues to provide protections to listed 
species by requiring action agencies to insure that their actions are 
not likely to jeopardize listed species. We do not believe that the 
Conference Report language or the Act requires the Services to 
establish a more demanding standard of documentation to demonstrate 
that measures included in a proposed action to avoid, minimize, or 
offset adverse effects will in fact be implemented. This rule does not 
change any statutory requirements found in section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 
and the Services will continue to utilize the best scientific and 
commercial data available when evaluating the efficacy of measures 
proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, if the determination that an 
action's impacts will not jeopardize a species relies on the 
implementation of conservation measures, those measures must be planned 
and funded.
    Response: We agree that if the Services determine that a measure 
intended to avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects is necessary to 
avoid jeopardy, then it is critical for the measure to be achievable 
and be carried out if the adverse effects of the action are also 
occurring. Ultimately, however, the Federal agency proposing to take 
the action is in the best position to determine what planning and 
funding is necessary to ensure that their substantive duties under 
section 7 are satisfied. As discussed above, the Services retain the 
discretion during consultation to assist the action agencies in 
developing or improving the effectiveness of measures proposed to 
avoid, minimize, or offset adverse effects and ensuring the greatest 
chance of success. Moreover, the Services retain the discretion to 
develop reasonable and prudent alternatives or reasonable and prudent 
measures and associated terms and conditions if doing so would be 
appropriate.

Section 402.14(h)--Biological Opinions

    We proposed to add new paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) to the current 
Sec.  402.14(h) to allow the Services to adopt all or part of a Federal 
agency's initiation package in its biological opinion. Additionally, we 
proposed to allow the Services to adopt all or part of their own 
analyses and findings that are required to issue a permit under section 
10(a) of the Act in its biological opinion. We are proceeding with 
those proposed changes, as well as the changes described under 
Discussion of Changes from Proposed Rule above. We summarize the 
comments and provide our responses on this topic below related to 
revisions to Sec.  402.14(h) below.
    Comment: We received numerous comments supporting the ability of 
the Services to adopt various internal or other Federal agency 
documents including their initiation package or the documents 
associated with the Services' section 10 documents because they believe 
this proposal would avoid unnecessary duplication of documents, 
streamline the consultation process, and codify existing practice. 
Other commenters were supportive but also recommended that an 
applicant's documents prepared pursuant to section 10 of the Act and 
tribal documents should be able to be adopted in the Service's 
biological opinion.
    Response: We believe that this proposal will codify existing 
practice and further encourage a collaborative process between the 
Services, Federal agencies, and applicants that will streamline the 
consultation process by eliminating duplication of analyses or 
documents whenever appropriate. We agree with commenters that 
appropriate analyses and documents from both tribes (e.g., tribal 
wildlife management plans or resource management plan) and applicants' 
section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans are eligible for adoption by the 
Services into their biological opinion.
    Comment: Some commenters raised concern that adopting section 10 
Habitat Conservation Plan analyses or documents was inappropriate 
because there are different standards in the two sections of the Act.
    Response: The intent of the proposed rule is to provide flexibility 
to adopt in a biological opinion, after appropriate review, relevant 
parts of internal analyses or documents prepared to support issuance of 
a section 10 permit. This could include the project description, site-
specific species information and environmental baseline data, proposed 
conservation measures, analyses of effects, etc., all of which may be 
appropriate for use in Service determinations pursuant to both sections 
7 and 10 of the Act.
    Comment: Several commenters were critical of the proposed rule, 
asserting that adoption of non-Service analyses or documents in a 
biological opinion would be an abdication of our responsibilities to 
conduct independent, science-based analyses and that only the Services 
possessed the requisite expertise to perform these analyses.
    Response: The Services' proposal is not to indiscriminately adopt 
analyses or documents from non-Service sources, but to adopt these 
analyses only after

[[Page 45008]]

our independent, science-based evaluation of existing analyses or 
documents that meet our regulatory and scientific standards. The intent 
is to avoid needless duplication of analyses and documents that meet 
our standards, including the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available. In some situations, the analyses or documents may need 
to be revised to merit inclusion in our biological opinions, but even 
those situations will make the consultation process more efficient and 
streamlined. For example, it is a common practice for the Services to 
adopt portions of biological assessments and initiation packages in 
their biological opinions. The codification of this practice creates a 
more collaborative process and incentive for Federal agencies and 
section 10 applicants to produce high-quality analyses and documents 
that are suitable for inclusion in biological opinions, which 
streamlines the timeframe for completion of the consultation process.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed adoption 
process might shift the burden to the Federal agency and extend the 
timeline for completion of consultation.
    Response: The Services disagree. Federal agencies currently have 
the responsibility under Sec.  402.14(c) to provide the information 
required to initiate consultation and to use the best scientific and 
commercial data available. The adoption process does not affect that 
responsibility. The Services' adoption of internal and non-Service 
analyses and documents is intended to streamline and reduce the overall 
consultation timeline.

Section 402.14(l)--Expedited Consultation

    We proposed to add a new provision titled ``Expedited 
consultations'' at Sec.  402.14(l) to offer opportunities to streamline 
consultation, particularly for actions that have minimal adverse 
effects or predictable effects based on previous consultation 
experience. We adopt the new Sec.  402.14(l) in this final rule and 
summarize the comments received and our responses below.
    Comment: Several commenters supported the proposed process for 
expedited consultations as it would promote conservation and recovery, 
increase efficiencies, reduce permitting delays, and generally 
streamline the consultation process.
    Response: The Services agree with these comments that the proposed 
expedited consultation provision will benefit species and habitats by 
promoting conservation and recovery through improved efficiencies in 
the section 7 consultation process.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned that consultations 
undergoing the expedited process would have reduced oversight and not 
allow for a thorough analysis of the potential effects of a Federal 
agency's proposed action and therefore may not meet the standards 
required under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Another commenter indicated 
that the proposed expedited consultation process could provide some 
benefits. However, the commenter raised concerns that the ability to 
evaluate a project on a specific basis would be missed, and this 
provision would open the door for blanket permissions to proceed on 
particular projects that could be detrimental to species, especially if 
there are new or specific impacts to species in time and place despite 
the project being similar to others.
    Response: The expedited consultation provision is an optional 
process that is intended to streamline the consultation process for 
those projects that have minimal adverse impact but still require a 
biological opinion and incidental take statement and for projects where 
the effects are either known or are predictable and unlikely to cause 
jeopardy or destruction or adverse modification. Many of these projects 
historically have been completed under the routine formal consultation 
process and statutory timeframes. This provision is intended to 
expedite the timelines of the formal consultation process for Federal 
actions while still requiring the same information and analysis 
standards as the normal process. Based upon the nature and scope of the 
projects expected to undergo this expedited process, expedited 
timelines will still allow for the appropriate level of review and 
oversight by the Services that meet the standards and requirements of 
the section 7 consultation process under the Act.
    Comment: Several commenters indicated they support this provision 
for an expedited consultation process. However, they requested 
additional clarification on when this type of consultation would be 
appropriate or examples of specific parameters such as time required 
for a proposed Federal action to undergo this expedited consultation 
process. A few commenters also asked for clarification on how this 
process differs from the programmatic consultation process.
    Response: A key element for successful implementation of this 
process is mutual agreement between the Service and Federal agency (and 
applicant when applicable). The mutual agreement will contain the 
specific parameters necessary to complete each step of the process, 
such as the completion of a biological opinion. Discussions between the 
Service and Federal agency (and applicant when applicable) will 
identify what projects could undergo this process. An example of an 
expedited consultation process that has been utilized by Services and 
land management agencies for many years is the streamlining agreement 
for western Federal lands (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp/esa/TrainingTools.htm). The streamlining agreement adopts an interagency 
team process that frontloads much of the consultation and leads to the 
issuance of biological opinions within 60 days. The streamlining 
agreement illustrates the types of efficiencies the Services hope to 
gain with the adoption of the expedited consultation provision. The 
expedited consultation provision is an optional process that is 
intended to streamline the consultation process, similar to other 
mechanisms such as programmatic consultations. However, this process 
differs from programmatic consultations primarily because it is 
expected to be completed entirely in an expedited timeframe resulting 
from familiarity with the type of project being proposed and its known 
or predictable effects on species. Additionally, this process may 
differ from a programmatic consultation in that many programmatic 
consultations often require lengthy time for technical assistance, 
agreements on conservation measures, and completion of the biological 
opinion in the initial phases of the consultation process, with 
efficiencies and streamlining achieved later on once individual 
projects are reviewed and appended or covered under the completed 
programmatic biological opinion. The Services nevertheless anticipate 
that, if appropriate, a programmatic consultation could proceed under 
the expedited consultation process.
    Comment: A few commenters indicated the proposed revisions for an 
expedited consultation approach may be unnecessary and unrealistic 
given current staffing and funding constraints of the Service(s), 
reducing their ability to meet expedited timelines. Additionally, one 
of these commenters also was concerned that the proposed changes to the 
definition of Director could cause additional delays if these types of 
consultations would all have to be signed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service headquarters in Washington, DC, defeating the purpose of 
completion

[[Page 45009]]

of formal consultation under an expedited timeline.
    Response: The Services do not anticipate an increase in constraints 
on staff or resources. The expedited consultation provision is 
anticipated to improve efficiencies by reducing the amount of time 
staff would need to spend completing consultations for projects 
undergoing this process. By decreasing the amount of time spent on 
these types of consultations, it is anticipated more staff time and 
resources would be available for completion of projects undergoing more 
complex or lengthy consultation processes.
    As discussed above, the revision to the definition for Director is 
intended to designate the head of both FWS and NMFS as the definitional 
Director under the section 7(a)(2) interagency cooperation regulations. 
The change does not revise the current signature delegations of the 
Services in place that allow for signature of specified section 7 
documents (e.g., biological opinions and concurrence letters) at the 
regional level and will not increase the completion time for 
consultation.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that this expedited consultation 
process only be undertaken for projects that are entirely beneficial to 
species and habitats.
    Response: The Services agree that many projects that are beneficial 
for species and habitats could undergo an expedited consultation 
process. Such projects may have some anticipated temporary adverse 
effects to listed species and their habitat, but often are predictable, 
and, therefore, these projects could be good candidates for the 
expedited consultation process. However, the Services do not agree that 
the expedited consultation provision should be limited to only these 
types of beneficial actions. Other actions that meet the requirements 
of the provision could also benefit from an expedited process while 
still ensuring full compliance with the Act.
    Comment: A few commenters opposed the proposed provision for 
expedited consultations since the Services generally complete 
consultations within the established statutory deadlines.
    Response: The Services strive to complete consultations within the 
established statutory deadlines, but continue to identify ways to 
improve efficiencies. The proposed new provision for expedited 
consultations is another streamlining mechanism intended to improve 
efficiencies in the section 7(a)(2) consultation process for the 
Services, Federal agencies, and their applicants while ensuring full 
compliance with the responsibilities of section 7.

Section 402.16--Reinitiation of Consultation

    The Services proposed to revise the title of section 402.16 to 
remove the term ``formal'' in order to recognize long standing practice 
between the Services and Federal agencies that reinitiation of section 
7(a)(2) consultation also applies to the written concurrences that 
complete the section 7(a)(2) process under Sec.  402.13 Informal 
Consultation. We are proceeding with that revision to Sec.  402.16 and 
also further revising the text at Sec.  402.16(c) to clarify the 
connection of the reinitiation criteria to the written concurrence 
process. This latter revision is described above in this final rule. We 
received several comments on this section, and those comments and our 
responses to the public comment received on the proposal to codify that 
reinitiation of consultation applies to the informal consultation 
written concurrence process are here provided.
    The Services also proposed to amend Sec.  402.16 to address issues 
arising under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Cottonwood Environmental 
Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service, 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 20016) cert. 
denied, 137 S. Ct. 293 (2016). We proposed to add a new paragraph (b) 
to clarify that the duty to reinitiate consultation does not apply to 
an existing programmatic land plan prepared pursuant to FLPMA, 43 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq., or NFMA, 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq., when a new 
species is listed or new critical habitat is designated. We proposed to 
narrow Sec.  402.16 to exclude those two types of plans that have no 
immediate on-the-ground effects. This exclusion is in contrast to 
specific on-the-ground actions that implement the plan and that are 
subject to their own section 7 consultations if those actions may 
affect listed species or critical habitat. Thus, the proposed 
regulation also restated our position that, while a completed land 
management plan prepared pursuant to FLPMA or NFMA does not require 
reinitiation upon the listing of new species or critical habitat, any 
on-the-ground subsequent actions taken pursuant to the plan must be 
subject to a separate section 7 consultation if those actions may 
affect the newly listed species or newly designated critical habitat.
    In addition to seeking comment on the proposed revision to Sec.  
402.16, we sought comments on whether to exempt other types of 
programmatic land or water management plans in addition to those 
prepared pursuant to FLPMA and NFMA from the requirement to reinitiate 
consultation when a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated. We also requested comment on the proposed revision in light 
of the recently enacted Wildfire Suppression Funding and Forest 
Management Activities Act, H.R. 1625, Division O, which was included in 
the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018.
    Comment: Some commenters agreed that the proposed changes would 
align our regulations with current practice and court decisions. Some 
commenters expressed concern that we were expanding the requirements 
for reinitiation or expanding the circumstances in which reinitiation 
is required. One commenter suggested we clarify when reinitiation is 
needed by establishing ``clear standards for determining what project 
changes warrant a re-evaluation of previously approved environmental 
documentation (i.e., what constitutes a material change).''
    Response: The proposed changes do not alter the requirement that 
the Federal agency retain discretionary involvement and control for 
reinitiation to apply. Nor does the proposal change or expand the scope 
of reinitiation triggers for section 7(a)(2) consultation. A material 
change relevant to section 7(a)(2) consultations on an action is 
captured in the reinitiation trigger at Sec.  402.16(c): ``[i]f the 
identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an 
effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not 
considered. . . .'' These standards for reinitiation of consultation 
are straightforward, and the Services do not plan further clarification 
in the regulatory text on this point. However, the Services are further 
revising Sec.  402.16(c) to make clear that this trigger for 
reinitiation of consultation applies to the written request for 
concurrence and our response.
    Informal consultation is an optional process in which a Federal 
agency may determine, with the Services' concurrence, that formal 
consultation is not necessary because the action is not likely to 
adversely affect listed species and critical habitat. In these cases, 
the relevant reinitiation triggers still apply to the action as long as 
the agency retains discretionary involvement or control over the 
action. For example, if the action is changed or new information 
reveals effects to listed species or critical habitat may occur in a 
manner not previously considered, then reinitiation of consultation is 
warranted. This could occur where a permitted activity proceeds in a 
manner different than originally proposed, or if

[[Page 45010]]

new scientific or commercial information indicates that the permitted 
activities or effects flowing from those activities have different or 
greater impacts on the critical habitat or species than originally 
evaluated during the informal consultation process.
    Comment: Several commenters urged the Services to extend the 
exemption from reinitiation when a new species is listed or critical 
habitat designated to all programmatic plans, including water 
management plans, other types of programmatic land management plans 
such as comprehensive conservation plans prepared for National Wildlife 
Refuges, and other types of integrated activity plans.
    Response: At this time, we have decided to limit only those 
approved land management plans prepared pursuant to FLPMA or NFMA from 
reinitiation when a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned the reinitiation exemption 
would apply to other U.S. Forest Service (USFS) plans, such as travel 
management plans.
    Response: Only approved USFS programmatic land management plans 
prepared pursuant to NFMA are temporarily relieved from the 
reinitiation of consultation when a new species is listed or critical 
habitat designated. Other types of plans are still subject to 
reinitiation if one of the triggers is met under Sec.  402.16(a) and 
the agency retains discretionary authorization or control over the 
plan.
    Comment: Many commenters believed that our proposed regulation is 
in contravention to controlling case law, including Cottonwood, Forest 
Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007), and Pacific 
Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F. 3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994). Likewise, a 
few comments criticized the proposed regulation because the duty to 
reinitiate derives from the action agency's substantive and procedural 
duties under section 7, which would be undermined.
    Response: We agree that Congress intended to enact a broad 
definition of ``action'' in the Act. We also agree that management 
plans may have long-lasting effects; however, those effects were 
addressed in a consultation when the plan was adopted. Any effects that 
were not considered in the original consultation may still be subject 
to reinitiation if certain triggers are met, including whether the 
agency retains discretionary authorization or control over the action. 
Any actions taken pursuant to the plan will be subject to its own 
consultation if it may affect listed species or critical habitat. We 
disagree with Cottonwood's holding that the mere existence of a land 
management plan is an affirmative discretionary action subject to 
reinitiation. See generally Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. 
Norton, 542 U.S. 55 (2004); see also National Ass'n of Homebuilders v. 
Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007). This amendment to Sec.  
402.16 reaffirms that only affirmative discretionary actions are 
subject to reinitiation under our regulations when any of the triggers 
at Sec.  402.16(a)(1) through (4) are met.
    Comment: Several commenters believed that the proposed Sec.  
402.16(b) violated the Wildlife Suppression Funding and Forest 
Management Activities Act, H.R. 1625, Division O, which was included in 
the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018.
    Response: After further review, the Services have revised the final 
regulation to include timeframes for forest land management plans 
prepared pursuant to NFMA to align with the temporary relief from 
reinitiation when a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated set forth by Congress in section 208 of the Wildfire 
Suppression Funding and Forest Management Activities Act included in 
the 2018 Omnibus bill. In addition, in section 209, Congress excluded 
those grant lands under the Oregon and California Revested Lands Act, 
39 Stat. 218, and the Coos Bay Wagon Road Reconveyed Lands Act, 40 
Stat. 1179, from reinitiation of consultation when a new species is 
listed or critical habitat designated. Congress set no time limit for 
this exemption. However, a separate consultation must still occur for 
these particular Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands for any actions 
taken pursuant to the plan, with respect to the development of a new 
land use plan, or the revision or significant change to an existing 
land use plan. See Wildfire Suppression Funding and Forest Management 
Activities Act at section 209(b).
    Congress did not address in the Wildfire Suppression Funding and 
Forest Management Activities Act other BLM land managed pursuant to 
FLPMA. Thus, we are exercising our discretion and excluding from 
reinitiation those programmatic land management plans prepared pursuant 
to FLPMA when a new species is listed or critical habitat designated, 
provided that any specific action taken pursuant to the plan is subject 
to a separate section 7 consultation if the action may affect listed 
species or critical habitat.
    Comment: A few commenters did not want a regulation relieving BLM 
and the USFS from reinitiation on its land management plans if a new 
species is listed or critical habitat designated. They believed a case-
by-case approach would make more sense, especially when a new listing 
under the Act might call for significant changes to the plan.
    Response: If a new listing or new critical habitat designation 
would require significant changes to a land management plan, those 
changes would have to be accomplished through a plan amendment or plan 
revision. A plan amendment or revision would be a separate action 
subject to consultation if it may affect listed species or critical 
habitat.
    Comment: Some commenters argued that BLM and the USFS retain 
sufficient discretionary involvement or control over their land 
management plans to require reinitiation if certain triggers are met.
    Response: The Services may recommend reinitiation of consultation, 
but it is within the action agency's purview, and not the Services', to 
determine whether it retains discretionary involvement or control over 
their plans for purposes of reinitiation.
    Comment: A few commenters supported Sec.  406.16(b) because 
developers of a land management plan should have considered how to 
manage for healthy ecosystems when the plan was adopted and thus should 
not always be required to reinitiate consultation. This direction 
shifts management away from a species-by-species focus and towards 
healthy landscapes and habitats.
    Response: We agree with this approach and note this type of focus 
is best achieved through a section 7(a)(1) conservation program in 
consultation with the Services when a new species is listed or critical 
habitat designated. As we noted in the proposed rule's preamble, this 
proactive, conservation planning process will enable an action agency 
to better synchronize its actions and programs with the conservation 
and recovery needs of listed and proposed species. Such planning can 
help Federal agencies develop specific, pre-approved design criteria to 
ensure their actions are consistent with the conservation and recovery 
needs of the species. Additionally, these section 7(a)(1) programs will 
facilitate efficient development of the next programmatic section 
7(a)(2) consultations when the land management plan is renewed.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern with the relief from 
reinitiation provision applying to a forest or land management plan 
that is out of date. A few suggested that we revise the regulation to 
require only up-

[[Page 45011]]

to-date land management plans be subject to the exemption provided in 
Sec.  402.16(b) so as to ensure the science and public input are not 
stale.
    Response: As noted in the proposed rule preamble, BLM and the USFS 
are required to periodically update their land management plans, at 
which time they would consult on any newly listed species or critical 
habitat. BLM is required to periodically evaluate and revise its 
Resource Management Plans (43 CFR part 1610), and reevaluations should 
not exceed 5 years (see BLM Handbook H-1601-1 at p. 34). Our proposed 
rule anticipated that BLM Resource Management Plans will be kept up to 
date in accordance with this agency directive and so did not place any 
limitation on the relief from reinitiation. Our final rule also does 
not place any limitation on the relief from reinitiation for approved 
BLM plans. For any BLM land management plan, we note that any separate 
action taken pursuant to such plans will be subject to a separate 
consultation, which will take into account effects upon newly listed 
species and designated critical habitat.
    USFS is required to revise their land management plans at least 
every 15 years (see 36 CFR 219.7). Congress, in the Wildfire 
Suppression Funding and Forest Management Activities Act, limited the 
relief from reinitiation with respect to plans prepared pursuant to 
NFMA to only those plans that are up to date, and that Congressional 
limitation is now also reflected in our revised final regulation.
    Comment: A few comments suggested adding text to the regulation not 
to require reinitiation on the approval of a land management plan when 
a new species is listed or critical habitat designated ``provided that 
any authorized actions that may affect the newly listed species or 
designated critical habitat will be addressed through a separate 
action-specific consultation limited in scope to the specific action.'' 
(emphasis added).
    Response: We respectfully decline to add this text because we do 
not think it is necessary.
    Comment: A few commented that Sec.  404.16(b) violates the 
Services' duty to consider cumulative effects.
    Response: We respectfully disagree. Cumulative effects are those 
effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal 
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area 
of the Federal action subject to consultation. In other words, a land 
management plan's effects within the action area does not include 
cumulative effects, but cumulative effects within the action area are 
taken into account when determining jeopardy or adverse modification.
    Comment: One commenter believed the final regulation violates 
section 7(d) of the Act because failure to reinitiate on a completed 
land management plan results in the irretrievable commitment of 
resources in a manner that forecloses reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to the plan that could avoid jeopardy.
    Response: Programmatic land management plans have no immediate-on-
the-ground effects. Thus, making a section 7(d) determination on the 
mere existence of a completed land management plan that is subject to 
step-down, action-specific consultations does little to further the 
conservation goals of the Act.
    Comment: One comment suggested that ``reinitiation'' does not 
require the completion of consultation and may not require a ``full-
blown'' consultation.
    Response: The Services agree that the scope and requirements of a 
reinitiation of consultation and documents for completion will depend 
on the particular facts of a given situation. We decline to issue 
regulations addressing this issue at this time, however. This comment 
also requested adding text that is already addressed under existing 
reinitiation triggers.
    Comment: One comment suggested that, if the species proposed for 
listing were already included in the consultation on the programmatic 
land management plan, such plans should not have to be reinitiated when 
the species becomes listed.
    Response: We agree with this comment. Also, this type of situation 
also lends itself well to a section 7(a)(1) program. Please see our 
response above.

Section 402.17--Other Provisions

    For responses related to this section, please see response to 
comments for ``effects of the action'' above.
Miscellaneous
    This section captures comments received and our responses for other 
aspects of the Services' proposed rule.
    Comment: In our proposed rule, the Services sought comment 
regarding revising Sec.  402.03 (applicability) to potentially preclude 
the need to consult under certain circumstances. We described this as 
``. . . when the Federal agency does not anticipate take and the 
proposed action will: (1) Not affect listed species or critical 
habitat; or (2) have effects that are manifested through global 
processes and (i) cannot be reliably predicted or measured at the scale 
of a listed species' current range, or (ii) would result at most in an 
extremely small and insignificant impact on a listed species or 
critical habitat, or (iii) are such that the potential risk of harm to 
a listed species or critical habitat is remote, or (3) result in 
effects to listed species or critical habitat that are either wholly 
beneficial or are not capable of being measured or detected in a manner 
that permits meaningful evaluation.''
    Response: The Services appreciate the wide variety of thoughtful 
comments and suggestions we received on these concepts. While many 
commenters supported the potential revisions, many did not. Though not 
an exhaustive list, the majority of the comments covered topics such as 
a belief that the concepts would streamline the consultation process 
and allow more time for consultation on projects with greater harm and 
risk to listed species, potential legal risks to action agencies if we 
were to revise the regulations to address these circumstances, unclear 
legal authority to adopt such regulations, concern regarding reduced 
opportunity for cooperation between the Services and Federal agencies, 
lack of adequate expertise in Federal agencies to correctly make the 
needed determinations, delays in consultation completion, complication 
of the consultation process, and failure to examine larger 
environmental phenomena. While such input may inform the future 
development of additional regulatory amendments, policies, or guidance, 
we have determined at this time, in the interests of efficiency, to 
defer action on this issue, which we may address at a later time. 
Because the Services are required only to respond to those ``comments 
which, if true, . . . would require a change in [the] proposed rule,'' 
Am. Mining Cong. v. United States EPA, 907 F.2d 1179, 1188 (D.C. Cir. 
1990) (quoting ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1581 (D.C. Cir. 1987)), 
those that were not specifically addressed in our proposed regulatory 
amendments are not ``significant'' in context of the proposed rule. See 
also Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 n. 58 (D.C. Cir. 
1977), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 
(1988). Therefore, we will not respond further to these comments at 
this time.
    Comment: We received many comments related to topics that were not 
specifically addressed in our proposed regulatory amendments, such as 
defining or revising definitions, clarifying emergency consultation, 
including economic considerations into the consultation process, 
revising the 1998 Consultation Handbook, and

[[Page 45012]]

revising the regulations implementing other sections of the Act.
    Response: The Services appreciate the many insightful comments and 
suggestions we received on section 7 and the consultation process. 
While such input may inform the future development of additional 
regulatory amendments, policies, or guidance, we have determined at 
this time, in the interests of efficiency, to go forward with the scope 
of the originally proposed regulatory revisions and defer action on 
other issues until a later time. Because the Services are required only 
to respond to those ``comments which, if true, . . . would require a 
change in [the] proposed rule,'' Am. Mining Cong. v. United States EPA, 
907 F.2d 1179, 1188 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 
1554, 1581 (D.C. Cir. 1987)), those that were not specifically 
addressed in our proposed regulatory amendments are not ``significant'' 
in context of the proposed rule. See also Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 
567 F.2d 9, 35 n. 58 (D.C. Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 
S.Ct. 1220, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 (1988). Therefore, we will not respond to 
these ``miscellaneous'' comments at this time.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the Services 
effectively failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for 
public comment, particularly because the three draft rules were posted 
simultaneously. Several commenters requested additional time for 
review, while others asserted we should withdraw our proposal, 
republish it with a more accurate and clear summary of the changes to 
the regulations and their implications, and provide further opportunity 
for public comment.
    Response: We provided a 60-day public comment period on the 
proposed rule. Following publication of our proposed rule, we held 
numerous webinars providing an opportunity for States, tribes, non-
governmental organizations, and industry groups to ask questions and 
provide input directly to the Services. This satisfies the Services' 
obligation to provide notice and comment under the Act and the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
    Comment: The Services received several comments that raised concern 
over whether we would finalize a rule without the opportunity for 
additional public notice and comment based upon our representation that 
the rulemaking should be considered as applying to all of part 402 and 
that we would consider whether additional modifications to the 
interagency cooperation regulations would improve, clarify, or 
streamline the administration of the Act.
    Response: We did seek public comments recommending, opposing, or 
providing feedback on specific changes to any provision in part 402. 
Based upon comments received and our experience in administering the 
Act, we represented that a final rule may include revisions that are a 
logical outgrowth of the proposed rule, consistent with the APA. Some 
believed that these representations would allow us to amend any of part 
402 without sufficient public notice in violation of the APA. We 
reiterate that any final changes to part 402 not specifically proposed 
would have to be a logical outgrowth of the proposal and fairly apprise 
interested persons of the issues. The Services have satisfied that 
standard here with regard to the changes adopted in this final rule 
compared to the proposed rule. As such, there are no substantial 
additional revisions that were not part of the proposed rule which 
would not be considered a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.
    Comment: Some commenters requested a hearing on the proposed rule.
    Response: As this is an informal rulemaking under APA section 553, 
a hearing is not required.
    Comment: Several Tribes commented they should have greater 
involvement in consultations affecting their resources and that 
traditional ecological knowledge should constitute the best scientific 
and commercial data available and be used by the Services.
    Response: Tribes provide significant benefits to the consultation 
process. The Services will continue to work with tribes to meet our 
trust responsibilities and to comply with applicable tribal engagement 
policies, including Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3206, NOAA 
Procedures for Government-to-Government Consultation With Federally 
Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, and the FWS 
Native American Policy, as part of the formal consultation process.
    Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is important and useful 
information that can inform us as to the status of a species, 
historical and current trends, and threats that may be acting on it or 
its habitat. The Act requires that we use the best scientific and 
commercial data available to inform the section 7(a)(2) consultation 
process. Although in some cases TEK may be the best data available, the 
Services cannot determine, as a general rule, that TEK will be the best 
available data in every circumstance. However, we will consider TEK 
along with other available data, weighing all data appropriately during 
our section 7(a)(2) analysis.
National Environmental Policy Act
    In the proposed regulation's Required Determinations section, we 
represented that the Services would analyze the proposed regulation in 
accordance with criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), the Department of the Interior regulations on implementation of 
NEPA (43 CFR 46.10-46.450), the Department of the Interior Manual (516 
DM 8), the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, and the NOAA Companion 
Manual, ``Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act and Related Authorities,'' which became 
effective January 13, 2017. We requested public comment on the extent 
to which the proposed regulation may have a significant impact on the 
human environment or fall within one of the categorical exclusions for 
action that have no individual or cumulative effect on the quality of 
the human environment.
    Comment: We received comments arguing that these proposed 
amendments to the section 7 regulations are significant under NEPA and 
thus require the preparation of an environmental impact statement or, 
at least, an environmental analysis. Other commenters believed these 
amendments qualify for a categorical exclusion (CE) under NEPA.
    Response: The Services believe that these rules will improve and 
clarify interagency consultation without compromising the conservation 
of listed species. We have not raised or lowered the bar for what is 
required under the regulations. For the reasons stated in the Required 
Determinations section of this final rule, we have determined that 
these amendments, to the extent they would result in foreseeable 
environmental effects, qualify for a CE from further NEPA review and 
that no extraordinary circumstances apply.
    Comment: Other commenters remarked upon inadequate funding for the 
Council on Environmental Quality and inefficiencies surrounding the 
implementation of NEPA.
    Response: These comments are outside the scope of these 
regulations.
Merit, Authority, and Means for the Services To Conduct a Single 
Consultation, Resulting in a Single Biological Opinion, for Federal 
Agency Actions Affecting Species That Are Under the Jurisdiction of 
Both FWS and NMFS
    In the proposed rule, we sought comment on ``the merit, authority, 
and

[[Page 45013]]

means for the Services to conduct a single consultation, resulting in a 
single biological opinion, for Federal agency actions affecting species 
that are under the jurisdiction of both FWS and NMFS.'' We received a 
variety of comments in response to our request. Some of them 
interpreted the Services' request to mean that we were requesting 
comment on our ability to conduct a joint consultation, resulting in a 
single biological opinion, when both Services have species that require 
consultation (e.g., both Services participate in the consultation and 
then prepare a single biological opinion in which each agency addresses 
the species for which it has responsibility). One commenter interpreted 
our request to be that one Service could conduct a consultation and 
prepare a biological opinion for a species for which the other agency 
has responsibility (e.g., FWS could consult and prepare a biological 
opinion for a listed chinook salmon, which is listed under NMFS' 
authority).
    Comment: Some commenters supported the Services conducting a single 
consultation, resulting in a single biological opinion. Examples of 
supporting comments include, but are not limited to: Joint 
consultations and biological opinions could improve the Services' 
process and outcomes through early collaboration on species under joint 
jurisdiction; there would be better alignment with the 1998 
Consultation Handbook's language regarding coordination, and more 
consistent interpretation and application of information between the 
Services. Concerns raised focused on issues such as: The potential for 
significant delays due to the additional coordination required between 
the Federal agency and the Services; and the potential for an increased 
burden on the Federal agency to negotiate consultation schedules with 
the Services to accommodate a joint consultation, especially when the 
proposed action is time sensitive. A few commenters proposed process 
improvements, such as the development of guidance, for when and how the 
Services conduct joint consultations and prepare joint biological 
opinions.
    Response: The Services acknowledge that there can be challenges 
with completing joint biological opinions in cases where the Services 
have joint jurisdiction (e.g., sea turtles), as well as in cases where 
the species addressed by the two agencies are different but both 
Services are engaged in consultation on the same project. Joint 
consultations require additional coordination, which often adds to 
complexity in scheduling meetings, preparing the biological opinion, 
etc. However, in some circumstances (e.g., where the Services' 
respective reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions 
have the potential to contradict one another), the additional 
coordination can be beneficial. Joint biological opinions are often the 
most efficient way to implement the Services' authorities and provide 
clarity to the action agencies and applicants. For these reasons, the 
decision to conduct a joint biological opinion is best made on a case-
by-case basis.
    In this rule, we are not proposing any changes to how we conduct 
joint consultations or prepare joint biological opinions. In a few 
circumstances (e.g., listed sea turtles), the Services will continue to 
implement existing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that help define 
our respective responsibilities. Otherwise, in accordance with our 
current practices, we will continue to involve the Federal agency and 
the applicant (working through the Federal agency) in the decision-
making process on the need for, and means to, conduct joint 
consultations and prepare joint biological opinions.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be illegal for one 
Service to conduct a consultation and prepare a biological opinion 
evaluating effects to a species for which the other agency has 
responsibility.
    Response: The Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Commerce 
have specific jurisdictional authority for species listed under the Act 
that have been assigned to them by Congress. The Act defines 
``Secretary'' as ``the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
Commerce as program responsibilities are vested pursuant to the 
provision of Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970.''
    Reorganization Plan Number 4 (Title 5. Appendix Reorganization Plan 
No. 4 of 1970, page 208) established the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration and Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
and transferred certain responsibilities from the Secretary of the 
Interior to the Secretary of Commerce. Reorganization Plan Number 4 was 
amended in 1977 to state, ``The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
shall be responsible for all matters related to living marine resources 
which may arise in connection with the conduct of the functions of the 
Administration. [As amended Pub. L. 95-219, 3(a)(1), Dec. 28, 1977, 91 
Stat. 1613.].''
    These regulations do not address the underlying particular 
circumstance raised by this comment; therefore, we decline to respond 
to the legal question posed by the commenter.
Role of Applicants and Designated Non-Federal Representatives in 
Section 7(a)(2) Consultations
    Comment: The Services received many comments regarding the role of 
applicants in the consultation process, including those encouraging an 
active role for applicants during consultation.
    Response: The Services appreciate these comments and agree that 
applicants play a significant role in the consultation process. The 
Act, the regulations, and the 1998 Consultation Handbook all provide 
for a role of an applicant in several stages of the consultation 
process. With regard to informal consultation, an applicant can act as 
the non-Federal representative and, under the guidance of the action 
agency, write any biological evaluations or assessments. With regard to 
formal consultation, as delineated in the regulations and 1998 
Consultation Handbook, an applicant: (1) Is provided an opportunity to 
submit information through the action agency; (2) must be informed by 
the action agency of the estimated length of time for an extension for 
preparing a biological assessment beyond the 180-day timeframe and the 
reason for the extension; (3) must be provided an explanation if the 
formal consultation timeframe is extended and must consent to any 
extension of more than 60 days; (4) may request to review a final draft 
biological opinion through the Federal agency and provide comments 
through the Federal agency; (5) have discussions with the Services for 
the basis of their biological determinations and provide input to the 
Services for any reasonable and prudent alternatives if necessary; and 
(6) be provided a copy of the final biological opinion.
    Our implementing regulations and 1998 Consultation Handbook assign 
to the Federal agency the responsibility for determining whether and 
how an applicant will be engaged in a consultation along with that 
agency. In order to facilitate involvement from applicants, if any 
applicant reaches out to the Service, we will notify the Federal agency 
immediately, advise the Federal agency of the opportunities for 
applicant involvement in the consultation process provided by the Act, 
the regulations, and the 1998 Consultation Handbook, and encourage the 
Federal agency to afford those opportunities to the applicant 
throughout the consultation process.
    Comment: Some commenters requested full participation by

[[Page 45014]]

designated non-Federal representatives in the consultation process.
    Response: Participation by designated non-Federal representatives 
is addressed at Sec.  402.08. This includes allowing the designated 
non-Federal representative to conduct the informal consultation and 
prepare biological assessments for formal consultations. The ultimate 
responsibility for complying with section 7(a)(2) of the Act lies with 
the consulting agency and, as such, they are best situated to determine 
when to designate non-Federal representatives, consistent with the 
regulations. As such, further regulation regarding non-Federal 
representatives in the consultation process is unnecessary.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
will review all significant rules. OIRA 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 final rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements. This final rule is consistent with 
Executive Order 13563, and in particular with the requirement of 
retrospective analysis of existing rules, designed ``to make the 
agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in 
achieving the regulatory objectives.''

Executive Order 13771

    This rule is an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 (i.e., 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 certified at the proposed rule 
stage that this action will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
our rationale.
    This rulemaking revises and clarifies existing requirements for 
Federal agencies under the Act. It will primarily affect the Federal 
agencies that carry out the section 7 consultation process. To the 
extent the rule may affect applicants, this rulemaking is intended to 
make the interagency consultation process more efficient and 
consistent, without substantively altering applicants' obligations. 
Moreover, this final rule is not a major rule under SBREFA.
    This final rule will determine whether a Federal agency has 
insured, in consultation with the Services, that any action it would 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. This rule is substantially unlikely to affect our 
determinations as to whether or not proposed actions are likely to 
jeopardize listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. The rule serves to provide clarity to 
the standards with which we will evaluate agency actions pursuant to 
section 7 of the Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    (a) On the basis of information contained under Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, above, this final rule will not ``significantly or 
uniquely'' affect small governments. We have determined and certify 
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, that this 
rule 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 will 
not be affected because this final rule will not place additional 
requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities.
    (b) This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or 
greater in any year; that is, this final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This final 
rule will impose no additional management or protection requirements on 
State, local, or tribal governments.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this final rule will not 
have significant takings implications. This rule will not pertain to 
``taking'' of private property interests, nor will it directly affect 
private property. A takings implication assessment is not required 
because this final 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 final rule will substantially advance a legitimate 
government interest (conservation and recovery of endangered species 
and threatened species) and will not present a barrier to all 
reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered 
whether this final rule would have significant effects on federalism 
and have determined that a federalism summary impact statement is not 
required. This final rule pertains only to improving and clarifying the 
interagency consultation processes under the Act and will 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.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and 
meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 
Executive Order 12988. This final rule will clarify the interagency 
consultation processes under the Act.

[[Page 45015]]

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175 ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, and the Department of Commerce (DOC) 
Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy (May 21, 2013), DOC 
Departmental Administrative Order (DAO) 218-8, and NOAA Administrative 
Order (NAO) 218-8 (April 2012), we have considered possible effects of 
this final rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes. Two 
informational webinars were held on July 31 and August 7, 2018, to 
provide additional information to interested Tribes regarding the 
proposed regulations. After the opening of the public comment period, 
we received multiple requests for coordination or government-to-
government consultation from multiple tribes: Cowlitz Indian Tribe; 
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; The Confederated Tribes of the Grand 
Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Oregon; 
Quinault Indian Nation; Makah Tribe; Confederated Tribes of the 
Umatilla Indian Reservation; and the Suquamish Tribe. We subsequently 
hosted a conference call on November 15, 2018, to listen to Tribal 
concerns and answer questions about the proposed regulations. On March 
6, 2019, FWS representatives attended the Natural Resources Committee 
Meeting of the United and South and Eastern Tribes' Impact Week 
conference in Arlington (Crystal City), VA. At this meeting, we 
presented information, answered questions, and held discussion 
regarding the regulatory changes.
    The Services conclude that this rule makes general changes the 
Act's implementing regulations and does not directly affect specific 
species or Tribal lands or interests. The primary purpose of the rule 
is to streamline and clarify the steps the Services undertake in 
completing section 7 consultations with Federal agencies. Therefore, 
the Departments of the Interior and Commerce conclude that these 
regulations do not have ``tribal implications'' under section 1(a) of 
E.O. 13175 and that formal government-to-government consultation is not 
required by E.O. 13175 and related polices of the Departments. We will 
continue to collaborate with Tribes on issues related to federally 
listed species and work with them as we implement the provisions of the 
Act. See Joint Secretarial Order 3206 (``American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species 
Act,'' June 5, 1997).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain any new collections of information 
other than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (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

    We analyzed this final rule in accordance with the criteria of 
NEPA, the Department of the Interior regulations on implementation of 
NEPA (43 CFR 46.10-46.450), the Department of the Interior Manual (516 
DM 8), the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, and its Companion Manual, 
``Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act and Related Authorities,'' which became effective January 
13, 2017. We have determined that, to the extent that the proposed 
action would result in reasonably foreseeable effects to the human 
environment, the final regulation is categorically excluded from 
further NEPA review and that no extraordinary circumstances are 
present. The rule qualifies for the substantially similar categorical 
exclusions set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) and NOAA Administrative Order 
216-6A and Companion Manual at Appendix E (Exclusion G7). The 
amendments are of a legal, technical, or procedural nature. The rule 
only serves to clarify and streamline existing interagency consultation 
practices.
    This final rule does not lower or raise the bar on section 7 
consultations, and it does not alter what is required or analyzed 
during a consultation. Instead, it improves clarity and consistency, 
streamlines consultations, and codifies existing practice. For example, 
the change in the definition of ``effects of the action'' simplifies 
the definition while still retaining the scope of the assessment 
required to ensure a complete analysis of the effects of the proposed 
Federal action. The two-part test articulates the practice by which the 
Services identify effects of the proposed action. Likewise, the 
causation standard to analyze effects provides additional explanation 
on how we analyze activities that are reasonably certain to occur.
    Other changes to 50 CFR part 402 are to aid in clarity and 
consistency. For example, we have separated out the definition of 
``environmental baseline'' from effects of the action and added a 
second sentence to the definition to avoid confusion over ``ongoing 
actions.'' A regulatory deadline for informal consultation, as well as 
requiring reinitiation of informal consultation when certain triggers 
are met, are legal and procedural in nature. Our additional changes to 
50 CFR 402.16 governing reinitiation of land management plans are also 
legal in nature and do not alter the review process for actions that 
cause ground-disturbing activities, and thus do not reduce procedural 
protection for listed species.
    We also considered whether any ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
apply to this situation, such that the DOI and NOAA categorical 
exclusions would not apply. See 43 CFR 42.215 (DOI regulations on 
``extraordinary circumstances''); NOAA Companion Manual to NAO 216-6, 
Section 4.A.
    FWS completed an environmental action statement, which NOAA adopts, 
explaining the basis for invoking the agencies' substantially similar 
categorical exclusions for the revised regulations.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)
    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. The final revised 
regulations are not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action, 
and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document is 
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 
FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 or upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803, and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service's Endangered Species Division, 1335 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Authority

    We issue this final rule under the authority of the Act, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 402

    Endangered and threatened species.

[[Page 45016]]

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend subparts A and B of part 402, subchapter A of 
chapter IV, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 
below:

PART 402--INTERAGENCY COOPERATION--ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, 
AS 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 revising the definitions of ``Destruction or 
adverse modification,'' ``Director,'' and ``Effects of the action'' and 
adding definitions for ``Environmental baseline'' and ``Programmatic 
consultation'' in alphabetic order to read as follows:


Sec.  402.02   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as 
a whole for the conservation of a listed species. Director refers to 
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, or his or her authorized representative; or the 
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or his or her 
authorized representative.
* * * * *
    Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or 
critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the 
consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed 
action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not 
occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to 
occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include 
consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the 
action. (See Sec.  402.17).
    Environmental baseline refers to the condition of the listed 
species or its designated critical habitat in the action area, without 
the consequences to the listed species or designated critical habitat 
caused by the proposed action. The environmental baseline includes the 
past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and 
other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of 
all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already 
undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of 
State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the 
consultation in process. The consequences to listed species or 
designated critical habitat from ongoing agency activities or existing 
agency facilities that are not within the agency's discretion to modify 
are part of the environmental baseline.
* * * * *
    Programmatic consultation is a consultation addressing an agency's 
multiple actions on a program, region, or other basis. Programmatic 
consultations allow the Services to consult on the effects of 
programmatic actions such as:
    (1) Multiple similar, frequently occurring, or routine actions 
expected to be implemented in particular geographic areas; and
    (2) A proposed program, plan, policy, or regulation providing a 
framework for future proposed actions.
* * * * *

0
 3. Amend Sec.  402.13 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  402.13   Informal consultation.

    (a) Informal consultation is an optional process that includes all 
discussions, correspondence, etc., between the Service and the Federal 
agency or the designated non-Federal representative, designed to assist 
the Federal agency in determining whether formal consultation or a 
conference is required.
* * * * *
    (c) If during informal consultation it is determined by the Federal 
agency, with the written concurrence of the Service, that the action is 
not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation process is terminated, and no further action is necessary.
    (1) A written request for concurrence with a Federal agency's not 
likely to adversely affect determination shall include information 
similar to the types of information described for formal consultation 
at Sec.  402.14(c)(1) sufficient for the Service to determine if it 
concurs.
    (2) Upon receipt of a written request consistent with paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, the Service shall provide written concurrence 
or non-concurrence with the Federal agency's determination within 60 
days. The 60-day timeframe may be extended upon mutual consent of the 
Service, the Federal agency, and the applicant (if involved), but shall 
not exceed 120 days total from the date of receipt of the Federal 
agency's written request consistent with paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section.

0
 4. Amend Sec.  402.14 by:
0
 a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. Removing the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (c);
0
 c. Revising paragraphs (g)(2), (4), and (8) and (h);
0
 d. Redesignating paragraph (l) as paragraph (m); and
0
 e. Adding a new paragraph (l).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  402.14   Formal consultation.

* * * * *
    (c) Initiation of formal consultation. (1) A written request to 
initiate formal consultation shall be submitted to the Director and 
shall include:
    (i) A description of the proposed action, including any measures 
intended to avoid, minimize, or offset effects of the action. 
Consistent with the nature and scope of the proposed action, the 
description shall provide sufficient detail to assess the effects of 
the action on listed species and critical habitat, including:
    (A) The purpose of the action;
    (B) The duration and timing of the action;
    (C) The location of the action;
    (D) The specific components of the action and how they will be 
carried out;
    (E) Maps, drawings, blueprints, or similar schematics of the 
action; and
    (F) Any other available information related to the nature and scope 
of the proposed action relevant to its effects on listed species or 
designated critical habitat.
    (ii) A map or description of all areas to be affected directly or 
indirectly by the Federal action, and not merely the immediate area 
involved in the action (i.e., the action area as defined at Sec.  
402.02).
    (iii) Information obtained by or in the possession of the Federal 
agency and any applicant on the listed species and designated critical 
habitat in the action area (as required by paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 
section), including available information such as the presence, 
abundance, density, or periodic occurrence of listed species and the 
condition and location of the species' habitat, including any critical 
habitat.
    (iv) A description of the effects of the action and an analysis of 
any cumulative effects.
    (v) A summary of any relevant information provided by the 
applicant, if available.
    (vi) Any other relevant available information on the effects of the 
proposed action on listed species or designated critical habitat, 
including any relevant reports such as environmental impact statements 
and environmental assessments.
    (2) A Federal agency may submit existing documents prepared for the

[[Page 45017]]

proposed action such as NEPA analyses or other reports in substitution 
for the initiation package outlined in this paragraph (c). However, any 
such substitution shall be accompanied by a written summary specifying 
the location of the information that satisfies the elements above in 
the submitted document(s).
    (3) Formal consultation shall not be initiated by the Federal 
agency until any required biological assessment has been completed and 
submitted to the Director in accordance with Sec.  402.12.
    (4) Any request for formal consultation may encompass, subject to 
the approval of the Director, a number of similar individual actions 
within a given geographical area, a programmatic consultation, or a 
segment of a comprehensive plan. The provision in this paragraph (c)(4) 
does not relieve the Federal agency of the requirements for considering 
the effects of the action or actions as a whole.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Evaluate the current status and environmental baseline of the 
listed species or critical habitat.
* * * * *
    (4) Add the effects of the action and cumulative effects to the 
environmental baseline and in light of the status of the species and 
critical habitat, formulate the Service's opinion as to whether the 
action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat.
* * * * *
    (8) In formulating its biological opinion, any reasonable and 
prudent alternatives, and any reasonable and prudent measures, the 
Service will use the best scientific and commercial data available and 
will give appropriate consideration to any beneficial actions as 
proposed or taken by the Federal agency or applicant, including any 
actions taken prior to the initiation of consultation. Measures 
included in the proposed action or a reasonable and prudent alternative 
that are intended to avoid, minimize, or offset the effects of an 
action are considered like other portions of the action and do not 
require any additional demonstration of binding plans.
    (h) Biological opinions. (1) The biological opinion shall include:
    (i) A summary of the information on which the opinion is based;
    (ii) A detailed discussion of the environmental baseline of the 
listed species and critical habitat;
    (iii) A detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed 
species or critical habitat; and
    (iv) The Service's opinion on whether the action is:
    (A) Likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat (a ``jeopardy'' biological opinion); or
    (B) Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat (a ``no jeopardy'' biological opinion).
    (2) A ``jeopardy'' biological opinion shall include reasonable and 
prudent alternatives, if any. If the Service is unable to develop such 
alternatives, the Service will indicate that to the best of its 
knowledge there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives.
    (3) The Service may adopt all or part of:
    (i) A Federal agency's initiation package; or
    (ii) The Service's analysis required to issue a permit under 
section 10(a) of the Act in its biological opinion.
    (4) A Federal agency and the Service may agree to follow an 
optional collaborative process that would further the ability of the 
Service to adopt the information and analysis provided by the Federal 
agency during consultation in the development of the Service's 
biological opinion to improve efficiency in the consultation process 
and reduce duplicative efforts. The Federal agency and the Service 
shall consider the nature, size, and scope of the action or its 
anticipated effects on listed species or critical habitat, and other 
relevant factors to determine whether an action or a class of actions 
is appropriate for this process. The Federal agency and the Service may 
develop coordination procedures that would facilitate adoption of the 
initiation package with any necessary supplementary analyses and 
incidental take statement to be added by the Service, if appropriate, 
as the Service's biological opinion in fulfillment of section 7(b) of 
the Act.
* * * * *
    (l) Expedited consultations. Expedited consultation is an optional 
formal consultation process that a Federal agency and the Service may 
enter into upon mutual agreement. To determine whether an action or a 
class of actions is appropriate for this type of consultation, the 
Federal agency and the Service shall consider the nature, size, and 
scope of the action or its anticipated effects on listed species or 
critical habitat and other relevant factors. Conservation actions whose 
primary purpose is to have beneficial effects on listed species will 
likely be considered appropriate for expedited consultation.
    (1) Expedited timelines. Upon agreement to use this expedited 
consultation process, the Federal agency and the Service shall 
establish the expedited timelines for the completion of this 
consultation process.
    (2) Federal agency responsibilities. To request initiation of 
expedited consultation, the Federal agency shall provide all the 
information required to initiate consultation under paragraph (c) of 
this section. To maximize efficiency and ensure that it develops the 
appropriate level of information, the Federal agency is encouraged to 
develop its initiation package in coordination with the Service.
    (3) Service responsibilities. In addition to the Service's 
responsibilities under the provisions of this section, the Service 
will:
    (i) Provide relevant species information to the Federal agency and 
guidance to assist the Federal agency in completing its effects 
analysis in the initiation package; and
    (ii) Conclude the consultation and issue a biological opinion 
within the agreed-upon timeframes.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  402.16 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a) through (d) as paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (4);
0
c. Designating the introductory text as paragraph (a);
0
d. Revising the newly designated paragraphs (a) introductory text and 
(a)(3); and
0
e. Adding a new paragraph (b).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  402.16  Reinitiation of consultation.

    (a) Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested 
by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal 
involvement or control over the action has been retained or is 
authorized by law and:
* * * * *
    (3) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner 
that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that 
was not considered in the biological opinion or written concurrence; or
* * * * *
    (b) An agency shall not be required to reinitiate consultation 
after the approval of a land management plan prepared pursuant to 43 
U.S.C. 1712 or 16 U.S.C. 1604 upon listing of a new species or 
designation of new critical habitat if the land management plan has 
been adopted by the agency as of the date of listing or designation, 
provided that any

[[Page 45018]]

authorized actions that may affect the newly listed species or 
designated critical habitat will be addressed through a separate 
action-specific consultation. This exception to reinitiation of 
consultation shall not apply to those land management plans prepared 
pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604 if:
    (1) Fifteen years have passed since the date the agency adopted the 
land management plan prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604; and
    (2) Five years have passed since the enactment of Public Law 115-
141 [March 23, 2018] or the date of the listing of a species or the 
designation of critical habitat, whichever is later.

0
6. Add Sec.  402.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  402.17  Other provisions.

    (a) Activities that are reasonably certain to occur. A conclusion 
of reasonably certain to occur must be based on clear and substantial 
information, using the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Factors to consider when evaluating whether activities caused by the 
proposed action (but not part of the proposed action) or activities 
reviewed under cumulative effects are reasonably certain to occur 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Past experiences with activities that have resulted from 
actions that are similar in scope, nature, and magnitude to the 
proposed action;
    (2) Existing plans for the activity; and
    (3) Any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements 
necessary for the activity to go forward.
    (b) Consequences caused by the proposed action. To be considered an 
effect of a proposed action, a consequence must be caused by the 
proposed action (i.e., the consequence would not occur but for the 
proposed action and is reasonably certain to occur). A conclusion of 
reasonably certain to occur must be based on clear and substantial 
information, using the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Considerations for determining that a consequence to the species or 
critical habitat is not caused by the proposed action include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) The consequence is so remote in time from the action under 
consultation that it is not reasonably certain to occur; or
    (2) The consequence is so geographically remote from the immediate 
area involved in the action that it is not reasonably certain to occur; 
or
    (3) The consequence is only reached through a lengthy causal chain 
that involves so many steps as to make the consequence not reasonably 
certain to occur.
    (c) Required consideration. The provisions in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section must be considered by the action agency and the 
Services.


Sec.  402.40  [Amended]

0
 7. Amend Sec.  402.40, in paragraph (b), by removing ``Sec.  
402.14(c)(1)-(6)'' and in its place adding ``Sec.  402.14(c)''.

    Dated: August 12, 2019.
David L. Bernhardt,
Secretary, Department of the Interior.
    Dated: August 9, 2019.
Wilbur Ross,
Secretary, Department of Commerce.
[FR Doc. 2019-17517 Filed 8-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P 3510-22-P