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

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

On June 3, 2010, a federal court approved a settlement that requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to take final action on proposed listings for six penguin species and one distinct population segment in the next few months.  In response to a 2006 petition to list 12 species of penguins, in 2007 the Service found that there was enough evidence to conduct a status review for 10 of the 12.  In 2008, the Service issued three proposed rules to list seven of the 10 as threatened or endangered due to climate change and commercial fishing, among other factors.  (See 73 Fed. Reg. 77,264, 73 Fed. Reg. 77,303, and 73 Fed. Reg. 77,332 (PDF).)

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN) sued to compel the Service to take final action on the proposed rules after it failed to take action within a year of the proposed rulemakings as required under the Endangered Species Act.  According to CBD, "[w]arming oceans, melting sea ice, and fishery harvests have wreaked havoc on penguins’ food supply: Krill, an essential nutrient for penguins, whales, and seals, has declined by up to 80 percent since the 1970s over large areas of the Southern Ocean." 

If the Service adopts the three proposed rules, the African, yellow-eyed, white-flippered, Fiordland crested, Humboldt, erect-crested, and a distinct population segment of the southern rockhopper penguins will receive protection under the Act.  Section 7(a) of the Act and  implementing regulations require federal agencies to evaluate their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened.

CBD and TIRN have threatened to bring suit to compel the Service to list the emperor and northern rockhopper penguins, which had been included in the 2006 listing petition.

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

In a letter (PDF) dated May 25, 2010 and sent to Secretaries Salazar and Locke of the Departments of the Interior and Commerce, respectively, Stephen Parker of the National Research Council's Water Science and Technology Board explained the National Research Council's decision to force the resignation of Dr. Pat Glibert of the University of Maryland.

The forced resignation is extraordinary in light of the National Research Council's Policy on Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports (which explicitly acknowledges that it is not uncommon for committee members to find that their own published and professional work is part of the technical basis and literature for the committee) and past practice.

In response to the resignations, Congressmen Costa and Cardoza sent a letter (PDF) dated May 28, 2010, expressing concerns over the resignations of Dr. Glibert and Dr. McGuire and seeking "an objective, comprehensive analysis of all of the factors that have limited the abundance of listed fish species in the Delta and have resulted in a significant decrease in the San Joaquin Valley’s water supply."  A press release that accompanied the letter states "Congressmen Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza demanded answers from the National Academy of Sciences to explain why a scientist whose findings question the validity of federal water policy was removed from the panel examining the factors degrading the health of the Bay-Delta and solutions to the region’s water challenges."

In addition, in a letter (PDF) dated June 1, 2010, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, Kern County Water Agency, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Westlands Water District expressed concerns about the resignations, arguing that they raise "serious questions regarding the integrity of the Committee and its work."

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

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service's ("Service') no "adverse modification" determination despite the fact that the proposed project would destroy some critical habitat.

In Butte Environmental Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (PDF), environmental plaintiffs challenged the Service's biological opinion finding that a proposed business park to be located along Stillwater Creek in Redding, California would not adversely modify the critical habitat of the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and the threatened slender Orcutt grass.  The Service had determined that the proposed project contained 356.6 acres of critical habitat shared by the vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.  The Service concluded that the project would destroy 234.5 acres of this critical habitat, which was equal to 0.04% of the fairy shrimp's total critical habitat nationwide and 0.10% of the tadpole shrimp's total critical habitat nationwide. 

The court rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments challenging the Service's determination that the project would not adversely modify the critical habitat of the listed species.  First, plaintiff argued that the Service applied an improper definition of "adverse modification" and did not account for the "recovery needs" of the affected species, as required by the court's previous decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services.  In Gifford Pinchot, the court held that the regulatory definition of "adverse modification" contradicted Congress's command and that the definition of adverse modification of critical habitat was properly a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the survival or recovery of a listed species.  The court rejected plaintiff's contention, citing the Service's statement in the biological opinion that it did not rely on the regulatory definition of "destruction of adverse modification" but relied upon the statute and the court's decision in Gifford Pinchot.  

Second, despite the fact that the proposed project would destroy 234.5 acres of critical habitat for the fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp, the court explained that an area of a species' critical habitat can be destroyed without appreciably diminishing the value of the species' overall critical habitat.  The court noted that the project would only affect a very small percentage of the total critical habitat for the listed species. While the plaintiff argued that the Service's focus on the project's impact on the species' total critical habitat masked the project's localized impact, the court stated that where "there is no evidence in the record that 'some localized risk was improperly hidden by use of large scale analysis, we will not second-guess the [Service].'"  

Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the Service failed to address the rate of loss of critical habitat, stating that the Endangered Species Act did not require the Service to calculate rate of loss.

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

On May 27, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision rejecting a challenge to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's critical habitat determination for the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp, concluding that the Service's determination was entitled to deference. 

Under the terms of the Endangered Species Act, the Service is required to designate, to the maximum extent practicable, critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species concurrently with a final listing rule.  Critical habitat is defined, in part, as "the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . ." 

Although the Service issued a final rule listing the San Diego fairy shrimp as endangered on February 3, 1997, it did not issue a final rule designating critical habitat until October 2000.  This designation, however, was short lived, because in response to a legal challenge by several industry groups, the Service sought a voluntary remand for further consideration.  In December 2007, the Service issued a revised final rule designating critical habitat for the fairy shrimp, this time designating, among other tracts of land, approximately 275 acres of land owned by plaintiffs.  

Plaintiffs filed an action challenging the Services second critical habitat designation, asserting that there was no evidence that the fairy shrimp occupied their property in 1997, when the species was listed.  The Court rejected plaintiffs' challenge, finding that, based on surveys conducted in 2001, and the fairy shrimp's sedentary life cycle, it was reasonable for the Service to conclude that fairy shrimp occupied the premises in 1997.

Plaintiffs also challenged the critical habitat designation on the basis that the Service failed to properly consider the economic impact of its designation.  Again, however, the Court deferred to the Service's determination, and upheld the Service's analysis of the economic impacts of its designation.

The deference shown by the Court in this case is common in much Endangered Species Act litigation, as such litigation often falls under the Administrative Procedure Act, which authorizes a reviewing court to set aside an agency action only if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

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