Search
Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive new posts in your inbox:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share

Like what you see? Share!

Twitter

DISCLAIMER: This blog is published for general information only - it is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice. While we welcome you to contact our authors, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you.

Entries in mbta (3)

Wednesday
Jun242015

USFWS Explores MBTA Incidental Take Permit

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced that it is looking into the creation of an incidental take permitting program under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  Currently the regulations under the MBTA only authorize incidental take for hunting; military readiness; scientific collection, falconry and other special purposes; and to control birds that cause depredation.  

USFWS will be preparing a programatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to evaluate the impacts of setting up a comprehensive incidental take permitting program.  Four initial options have been identified:

  • Programmatic authorization for take associated with certain activities and industries.  The activities initially identified by USFWS are oil, gas and wastewater disposal pits; gas exhaust pipes at oil production facilities; communication towers; and electric transmission and distribution lines.  Other activities, specifically wind energy generation, are under consideration.
  • Individual permits authorizing activities on a case-by-case basis.  This option could exist in tandem with the programatic authorization option to permit incidental take for activities not included in the programmatic exemption.
  • Memoranda of understanding with federal agencies.  This is analogous to a programmatic authorization for incidental take caused by federal agency activities.  Whether such an MOU would authorize take by a third party acting under a federal regulatory program (e.g. pursuant to an Army Corps Section 404 permit) is under consideration.
  • Voluntary guidance.  This option would be a continuation of the status quo, where USFWS would not provide legal authorization in the form of a permit, but would use its enforcement discretion to give a pass to activities conducted in accordance with its guidance.  

USFWS will be accepting comments regarding its initial proposals until July 27.  In the meantime, USFWS is holding “open houses” on its proposal and will present a webinar on July 8.  USFWS has also created a website just for the MBTA rulemaking.

Hundreds of millions of migratory birds protected under the MBTA are killed by human activity every year.  The creation of a permitting system that allows otherwise lawful, socially desirable activity to go forward without relying on USFWS’s enforcement discretion to avoid criminal liability is long overdue.

Monday
Jun022014

Army Corps Permit for Sisk Wind Power Project Affirmed in Federal Court 

A lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit to TransCanada’s Sisk Mountain wind power project was denied today in U.S. District Court in Maine.  Judge George Singal affirmed the magistrate judge’s recommended decision in its entirety, denying project opponents’ claims based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

This decision is is the latest in a string of federal court decisions rejecting similar claims raised by wind power opponents.

TransCanada is represented in the Sisk litigation by Verrill Dana attorneys Juliet Browne and Gordon Smith.  

Tuesday
Mar182014

Cape Wind Court Remands on ESA Claims, Denies MBTA Claim

A federal district court has issued an 88-page split decision in the litigation challenging federal approvals of the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound.  On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the federal defendants and developer Cape Wind Associates on all but two claims, rejecting numerous arguments advanced by a large group of project opponents that had been consolidated into one suit.  However, as a result of the plaintiffs’ success on those two claims, both of which were based on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the matter has been remanded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for further action before the Cape Wind project can go forward.

The Court found that FWS violated the ESA by not independently determining that curtailment of turbine operations was not a reasonable and prudent measure to require of the project.  The record contained the agencies’ reasoning behind not requiring curtailment (it would undercut the project purpose and scope by significantly reducing electricity generation), but the reasoning was attributed to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Cape Wind, not to FWS.  The Court found that the ESA requires FWS to make that determination independently.  This may be a case of form over substance, with the defect curable on remand by some wordsmithing. 

Potentially more problematic was that the Court found that NMFS violated the ESA by not issuing an incidental take statement related to endangered right whales.  NMFS found that the project was “not likely to adversely affect right whales and not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of right whales” but did not categorically state that take would not occur.  The Court held that, because incidental take “may occur,” NMFS was required to include an incidental take statement with its biological opinion.  The significance here is that, in the context of formal consultation, anytime take of a listed species “may occur,” no matter how unlikely, the Court has found that it is arbitrary and capricious not to issue an incidental take statement. 

However, perhaps of most significance to other wind power developers was the Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ claim that BOEM violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by approving the Cape Wind project, even though it was acknowledged that the project, once operational, was likely or even assured to result in take of protected migratory birds.  The Court stopped short of finding that the MBTA never applied to an agency acting in a regulatory capacity, as in this case with BOEM approving the activity of a third party that would result in take of birds protected by the MBTA.  Rather, the Court found that there was not a sufficiently reasonable certainty that take under the MBTA would occur because the project has yet to be built, stating: “Even if the taking of migratory birds takes place at some point in the future, it is clear that no such taking has yet occurred and is not imminent at this point because construction of the Cape Wind project has not begun and the wind turbine generators that might take migratory birds are not operational.”

This is the second case in which a court has addressed the application of the MBTA to the federal approval of a wind power project.  This fall the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Salazar rejected a similar MBTA claim by wind power opponents.