Opinion ID: 72034
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The STB's Informal Consultation with the FWS

Text: In assessing whether the proposed rail was likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species or their habitats, the STB was required to consult with the FWS. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). [7] The STB initiated an informal consultation [8] with the FWS on March 31, 2003. In the first step of an informal consultation, the agency must determine whether an endangered or threatened species, or critical habitat [9] for such species, may be present in the vicinity of the proposed action. Id. § 1536(c)(1); 50 C.F.R. § 402.13(a). If no such species or critical habitat may be present, no further consultation is required; if they may be present, then the informal consultation proceeds to the second step. 50 C.F.R. § 402.13. [10] On April 22, 2003, the FWS informed the STB that the endangered goldencheeked warbler was listed in FWS records as being present in Medina County, [11] although no designated critical habitat for the warbler (or for any other species) was listed in the vicinity of the proposed action. The FWS indicated that most of the area around the proposed rail had previously been cleared for agriculture and did not offer supportive habitat for the warbler, but that a small portion of land near the proposed loading loop had not been cleared and might provide such habitat. The FWS requested that the STB conduct a habitat assessment and bird surveys in the area of the entire proposed action. In a subsequent letter, the FWS also informed the STB that certain endangered karst invertebrate species, [12] though not listed as present in Medina County, were listed in FWS records as being present in neighboring Bexar County. These listed karst invertebrates depend on the Edwards Aquifer, a large karst aquifer that spans several counties, including Medina County, and that receives some recharge water from the site of the proposed quarry. The FWS was concerned that these listed karst invertebrates could be adversely impacted if the proposed action tainted groundwater at the quarry site or damaged karst features on the property connected to the Edwards Aquifer. The FWS urged the STB to consider the effects of the proposed action on groundwater, to survey the site for karst features, and to evaluate, if karst features were present, the possible impact of the proposed action on those features. Because the golden-cheeked warbler was listed as being present in Medina County and because there was potential for the proposed action to affect the habitat of listed karst invertebrates in neighboring Bexar County, the informal consultation proceeded to the second step, in which the STB was required to conduct a biological assessment of the effects of the proposed action. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c)(1). The particular contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency[,] ... depend[ing] on the nature of the Federal action, but may include [a]n analysis of the effects of the action on the species and habitat, including consideration of cumulative effects, and the results of any related studies. 50 C.F.R. § 402.12(f). Effects of the action are the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action. Id. § 402.02. Indirect effects, in turn, are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. Id. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Id. 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. Id. The ESA regulations permit an agency to conduct a biological assessment as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. [13] 50 C.F.R. § 402.12(g). The STB opted to do so in this case. In preparing an EIS to comply with NEPA, an agency must consider, among other things, the cumulative impacts of the proposed action, defined as: the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (emphasis added). In assessing the proposed action, the STB's review of cumulative impacts (reasonably foreseeable future actions) under NEPA encompassed its review of cumulative effects (actions reasonably certain to occur) under the ESA. See Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended; Final Rule, 51 Fed. Reg. 19,926, 19,933, 1986 WL 93097 (June 3, 1986) (codified at 50 C.F.R. Part 402) (characterizing cumulative impact review as requiring a broader inquiry that encompasses a cumulative effects review). [14] MCEAA does not allege a NEPA violation. As part of the EIS, the STB [15] and an independent, third-party consultant, URS Corporation, conducted walking and aerial surveys of the various proposed routes for the seven-mile rail line and the site for the proposed loading loop. No golden-cheeked warblers were found. Almost no suitable warbler habitat was found, although the area just south of the proposed loading loop was dispersed woodland composed largely of juniper and oaks that the STB concluded had low potential to support warblers. The surveys also inspected the proposed rail routes and the Phase One area for karst features. The surveys revealed some karst features, but none that provided habitat for any endangered or threatened species.