Guide to Submitting Endangered Species Act Project Reviews

Project applicants in Wyoming face a stricter procedural threshold to avoid costly delays when seeking federal environmental clearances.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued specific guidance for the Wyoming Field Office to streamline how proponents submit proposed projects for review under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The new framework aims to prevent the administrative bottleneck that occurs when submissions lack sufficient detail. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, providing inadequate information can directly increase review times or trigger repetitive requests for additional data, stalling development and conservation efforts alike.

For any project seeking compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Service requires a granular breakdown of the proposed action. This includes the project’s specific purpose, exact location via legal description or county, and the precise scale, whether measured in acres or linear miles. Developers must also identify the regulatory authority driving the review, such as the National Environmental Policy Act or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Defining the impact on local species

A central component of the submission process is the “effects determination,” a critical step where applicants categorize how their work might touch upon listed species or critical habitats. The Service provides three distinct pathways for these determinations.

No effect: This applies when there are absolutely no impacts on listed species. Importantly, the Service notes that “no effect” does not include small or unlikely effects.
May affect, not likely to adversely affect: This category covers impacts that are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. An insignificant effect is one that does not reach the level of a “take,” while a discountable effect is one deemed extremely unlikely to occur.
May affect, likely to adversely affect: This designation is required if an adverse impact cannot be avoided. This includes scenarios where a “take” might occur, necessitating formal consultation with the Service.

Under the legal definitions of the Act, a “take” is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a protected species. If an applicant determines a project may likely adversely affect a species, they must follow the formal consultation requirements outlined in 50 CFR § 402.14.

Wyoming’s energy, construction, and infrastructure sectors face high economic stakes. A single missing map or an incomplete description of construction phases—such as vegetation clearing or heavy equipment use—can halt a project’s momentum. The Service advises that proponents should describe every stage, from pre-construction and staging to the final post-construction phase.

Requirements for federal agencies

The burden of responsibility shifts when a federal agency is involved. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal action agencies are mandated to engage in interagency cooperation. This means they must make their own effects determinations for every listed species and proposed critical habitat involved in their actions.

Introduction to the endangered species act

If a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or result in the destruction of critical habitat, the agency is required to confer with the Service per 50 CFR § 402.10. While contractors or consultants may act on behalf of a federal agency, they must possess formal designation documentation under 50 CFR § 402.08 to conduct these consultations.

To facilitate these reviews, the Wyoming Field Office directs all submissions to a centralized email address, [email protected]. The Service explicitly warns against emailing individual staff biologists or supervisors, noting that such direct outreach can actually result in longer review times rather than faster approvals.

Applicants are encouraged to use the online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool to secure an official species list before submitting their formal project details. This step ensures that the effects determination is grounded in the most current biological data available for the specific project site.

Worth a look