Endangered Species Law and Policy : Environmental and Natural Resources Attorneys from Nossaman

In an article published in Yale Environment 360 on July 22, 2010, Todd Woody chronicles the ongoing campaign by various environmental organizations to use the Endangered Species Act to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The article, Enlisting Endangered Species As a Tool to Combat Warming, recounts the perils facing the American Pika, previously blogged about here,  to illustrate the broader strategy aimed at forcing the Services to regulate GHG emissions.

As noted in our blog post, Fish and Wildlife Service's to Review Prospect of Listing Whitebark Pine Due to Climate Change, the Service recently announced a 90-day finding that listing the whitebark pine as endangered or threatened due to climate change may be warranted.  In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service may adopt rules listing several species of penguins due to climate change.  The National Marine Fisheries Service previously determined that a petition to list 83 species of coral due to climate change presented substantial information indicating that listing might be warranted for 82 of the species.  But the Fish and Wildlife Service declined to list the American pika as endangered or threatened due to climate change.

As Mr. Woody notes in his article, these listing decisions have been spurred by petitions and lawsuits filed by several environmental organizations with the aim of not only protecting the species from extinction, but utlimately requiring the Services to require emitters of GHG to reduce or mitigate their emissions.  But, so far, the utimate aim has been frustrated by resistance from both the Bush and Obama Administrations and doubts about the validity of the legal theory underlying the overarching strategy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Fish and Wildlife Service announced a 90-day finding that listing the whitebark pine as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted.    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) previously petitioned the Service to list the whitebark pine in 2008.  It filed a lawsuit in March 2010 to force the Service to act on the listing petition.  In its petition, NRDC claimed that climate change posed one of the most significant threats to whitebark pine.  According to NRDC, whitebark pines are being threatened by several factors, which are exacerbated by climate change, including being attacked by mountain beetles that are now capable of moving to higher elevations due to rising temperatures.   

The Service's decision initiates a 60-day period for the public to provide information on the status of the species.  After the Service has conducted its status review, it will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether listing is warranted.  The Service's 90-day finding does not necessarily mean that the Service's 12-month finding will result in a "warranted" conclusion because the 12-month finding is based on a more rigorous "best scientific and commercial data" standard. 

The Service's decision is one of several recent listing decisions involving climate change.  The Service may adopt rules listing several species of penguins due to climate change.  The National Marine Fisheries Service previously determined that a petition to list 83 species of coral due to climate change presented substantial information indicating that listing might be warranted for 82 of the species.  However, the Service declined to list the American pika as endangered or threatened due to climate change. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service (PDF), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California found that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act in concluding that water diversion on the Yuba River would not jeopardize or adversely modify the critical habitat of the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and North American green sturgeon.

The court found that the NMFS biological opinion (BiOp) failed to provide a rational connection between the factual determination that the project would perpetuate unmitigated stressors and the conclusion that those stressors would not jeopardize the listed fish.  The court reiterated that an agency action can only “jeopardize” a species’ existence if that “agency action causes some deterioration in the species’ pre-action condition,” but that these effects can only be understood in the context of the current status of the species, the environmental baseline, and future cumulative effects. The court held that in order to determine that other stressors identified in the BiOp will not cause a decline in the identified viability factors for the species, “the BiOp must discuss (through some method) the magnitude of the stressors’ impact, the populations’ ability to tolerate this impact, and the reason why any decline will not reduce the overall likelihood of survival or recovery.”

The court also found that the BiOp failed to consider various other aspects of the problem, including hatcheries, the San Francisco Bay Delta, poaching, the species’ overall viability, and global warming. The court found that evidence in the administrative record suggested that each of the first four stressors is one that is likely to adversely affect the listed species and that failure to consider the effect of the stressor on the listed species rendered the BiOp’s no-jeopardy conclusion arbitrary and capricious. As to global warming, the court stated that it “cannot conclude that global warming’s potential impacts are so slight that NMFS could ignore them without discussion” and that while the BiOp discussed present impacts on water temperature, it did not address whether global warming will alter temperature or flow. Therefore, by failing to discuss global warming, NMFS failed to address an important part of the problem.

With respect to the BiOp’s critical habitat analysis, “the BiOp concluded that the project would not adversely modify critical habitat because the project’s net ‘impacts’ on habitat were at worst neutral when measured against conditions immediately preceding the BiOp.” The court concluded that this conclusion was arbitrary and capricious as the court could not discern the reason underlying the critical habitat analysis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 13, 2010, the National Wildlife Federation and Florida Wildlife Federation filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ("FEMA") failure to consult with federal wildlife agencies on the potential impacts of implementing the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP") in Florida is a violation of the Endangered Species Act.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that implementation of the NFIP "promotes, encourages, and influences residential and commercial development along Florida's beaches," which "impairs essential habitat functions of five species of threatened or endangered sea turtles."  The plaintiffs seek an order compelling FEMA to, among other things, consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to insure that the implementation of the NFIP does not jeopardize the threatened and endangered sea turtles.

Similar actions have been filed throughout the United States, some of which have resulted in published decisions ordering FEMA to consult with federal wildlife agencies.  For example, on April 1, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that FEMA was required to consult with federal wildlife agencies regarding its administration of the NFIP because of potential impacts to various endangered and threatened species located in the Florida Keys.  Similarly, in 2004 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held that FEMA was required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding its administration of the NFIP because of potential impacts to the Puget Sound chinook salmon.

In addition to the latest lawsuit filed by the National Wildlife Federation and Florida Wildlife Federation, in 2009 WildEarth Guardians filed two similar lawsuits against FEMA in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.  That same year, a similar lawsuit against FEMA was also filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta and Kern County Water Agency filed a similar lawsuit against FEMA in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.  Except for the litigation filed in the District of Oregon, all of these matters are currently pending resolution; the Oregon matter is now resolved as the result of a stipulated settlement. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association v. Salazar (PDF), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) determination that under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), critical habitat for the threatened Mexican spotted owl is not limited to areas where the owl actually resides, but can encompass areas that the owl uses with sufficient regularity that it is likely to be present during a reasonable span of time.  That standard means the thousands of miles of migratory bird flyways used by ESA-listed birds could become protected critical habitat. The decision also held that when implementing the ESA’s requirement to decide whether the costs of designating an area as critical habitat outweigh the benefits, the Service need not include costs caused by the critical habitat designation if such costs can also be attributed to listing the species.

Arizona Cattle Growers’ made two arguments on appeal: (1) that the Service impermissibly treated areas in which no owls are found as “occupied" under the ESA, and (2) in the Service’s determination of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation, the Service used a “baseline” approach that did not account for economic impacts of the critical habitat designation that are also attributable to the listing decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After nine years of environmental review and the arduous federal, state, and local permitting process, Cape Wind Associates, LLC (CWA) recently obtained the right to a commercial lease from the Minerals Management Service (recently renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement) to construct and operate an offshore wind facility located in federal waters 4.7 miles offshore Cape Cod, Massachusetts, on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound.

But on June 25, 2010 a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit (PDF) in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to block construction of the Cape Wind project.  The coalition alleges that the Minerals Management Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Specifically, the coalition claims that the biological opinion (PDF) for the project will unlawfully allow the project to "take" Roseate Terns and Piping Plovers without sufficient safeguards based on the best available science and the Service’s own determination of reasonable and prudent measures to minimize take such as shutting down the turbines during peak periods of migration through the Nantucket Sound.

The lawsuit illustrates the hurdles that renewable energy projects often face, even after years of federal, state, and local permitting and environmental review.  Although many environmental groups support the Cape Wind project, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace USA, every renewable energy project will have some adverse environmental impacts, and is therefore vulnerable to citizen suits, well founded or not, under the panoply of environmental laws that apply to energy projects.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 24, 2010, the Fish & Wildlife Service issued a Notice of Violation to the City of Birmingham, Alabama for allegedly killing an estimated 11,700 endangered watercress darters, and injuring approximately 8,900 others, in a single incident in 2008.  The Service is seeking $2,975,000 in civil penalties as a result of the incident.

The watercress darter is found in only five spring brooks and spring pools in Birmingham, Alabama.  In September 2008, a Birmingham maintenance crew allegedly breached an earthen dam and drained a spring pool, stranding and killing thousands of watercress darters.  The incident resulted in the loss of more than half of the largest known population of the species. 

The City of Birmingham has 45 days to either pay the proposed civil penalty, initiate informal negotiations with the Service, or file a Petition for Relief in accordance with the Service's regulations. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The California Court of Appeal’s First Appellate District issued a decision affirming the lower court in a case of first impression regarding the interpretation of the term “person” in the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The issue presented to the court was whether the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is a person for the purpose of CESA. The court held that “a state agency is a ‘person’ within the meaning of section 2080, which prohibits any ‘person’ from taking an endangered or threatened species without appropriate permit authority from the California Department of Fish and Game.”  The court decided the matter – despite the fact that DWR complied with the trial court’s writ and obtained proper authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game thus rendering the case moot – due to the importance of the issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Home to endangered species, marine mammals, and nationally significant commercial and recreational fishing resources, the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is under assault. When the Deepwater Horizon oil platform exploded on April 20, sinking two days later, it began spewing oil into the Gulf’s ecosystem. Recalling that the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill released just over 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, on May 27 scientists estimated that the Gulf spill, hopefully now capped, released between 17 million and 27 million gallons of oil, making it the largest spill in U.S. history

Already oil is washing ashore along the Gulf Coast states, but the damages were felt from the very first days of the spill. Many charter boat fishermen watched helplessly as virtually all of their spring, summer, and fall bookings canceled. The multi-million dollar shrimp fishery, together with other major Gulf commercial fisheries, face economic ruin as the spreading oil approaches critical nursery and habitat areas. Federal and state agencies are mobilizing for the expected strandings of marine mammals and other wildlife populations. Valuable wetland and marsh areas may be lost.

Sadly, scientists who assess and manage all of these resources have varying degrees of data to assess the impacts of the spill. In the case of the deep ocean ecosystem where much of the spilled oil resides, scientific knowledge is spotty at best. It may be years before the full impact of this spill on the Gulf’s ecosystem is known. In some instances, we may never know because we do not have the environmental baseline data for the environment that existed before the spill.
Federal and state agencies are in the process of assessing the economic and environmental damages from the spill. But if the Exxon Valdez case is any guide, it could be 20 years before we finish the legal battles regarding who pays and what environmental restoration is required. Chief among these battles will be the process by which natural resource agencies assess natural resource damages (“NRD”) under the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”). The OPA NRD provisions parallel those in Superfund. However, Superfund’s NRD provisions have generated substantial debate about the process by which damages are assessed and one can expect this debate to be replayed in OPA with respect to the Gulf spill. Already industry and environmental experts are lining up for what promises to be an epic battle.

Members of Congress are also closely watching the impact of the oil spill on their constituents, industries, and the ecosystem. As this drama unfolds, the need for biological information will be critical. And the legal and legislative battles that will flow from this spill may set legal precedents and highlight the need for regulatory and legislative changes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link