Opinion ID: 184033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the endangered species act and the national historic preservation act

Text: Petitioners also argue that DOE violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531, by failing to consult with the Secretary of Interior pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). We have recently stated that [t]he threshold for triggering the Endangered Species Act is relatively low; consultation is required whenever a federal action ` may affect listed species or critical habitat.' Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999, 1018 (2009) (quoting 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a)) (emphasis added). DOE responds that petitioners' arguments concerning the ESA echo their NEPA arguments. Petitioners also contend that DOE violated the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to comply with 16 U.S.C. § 470f, which requires that it accept comments from certain entities, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on an undertaking that has the potential to adversely affect historic properties. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.1(c); 800.3(a); 800.16(y). DOE argues that it reasonably declined to initiate historic-preservation review under NHPA, and further claims that it adequately responded to the two letters it received from the ACHP. As we hold that the Congestion Study and the NIETCs Designation must be vacated and the matter remanded to the DOE, we need not consider petitioners' claims under the ESA and NHPA. Should DOE on remand designate NIETCs in a manner that petitioners believe violates either the ESA or NHPA, they can then seek judicial review of those decisions.