As we discussed in a previous post, on January 14, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a final 4(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act for the northern long-eared bat. As we noted, although the final 4(d) rule was widely viewed as a “win” for the wind industry, environmental organizations were
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Final 4(d) Rule for Northern Long-Eared Bat Under Endangered Species Act
In April 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) published a final decision to list the northern long-eared bat as threatened and, rather than publishing a final 4(d) rule, opted to publish an interim 4(d) rule and open a 90-day comment period to gather additional information and potentially refine the interim 4(d) rule.
As we discussed in a post last year, the effect of the interim 4(d) rule depended on the location of a particular activity. For areas of the country not affected by white-nose syndrome, the interim 4(d) rule exempted incidental take from all activities. For areas of the country affected by white-nose syndrome, the interim 4(d) rule exempted from Endangered Species Act take prohibitions the following activities: (1) forest management practices, (2) maintenance and limited expansion of transportation and utility rights-of-way, (3) prairie habitat management, and (4 ) limited tree removal projects, provided these activities protected known maternity roosts and hibernacula. Under the interim 4(d) rule, those activities were exempted provided: (1) the activity occurred more than 0.25 mile (0.4 km) from a known, occupied hibernacula, (2) the activity avoided cutting or destroying known, occupied roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31), and (3) the activity avoided clearcuts (and similar harvest methods, e.g., seed tree, shelterwood and coppice) within 0.25 mile (0.4 km) of known, occupied roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31). Thus, with a few narrow exceptions, the interim 4(d) rule prohibited all incidental take within areas of the country affected by white-nose syndrome, including take resulting from the operation of utility-scale wind turbines.
Continue Reading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Final 4(d) Rule for Northern Long-Eared Bat Under Endangered Species Act
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Opts Not to Appeal 30-Year Eagle Rule Decision, Focuses on Development of Eagle Permitting Program
On January 19, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped its Ninth Circuit appeal of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s ruling that set aside the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“Service”) rule to extend the maximum term for programmatic “take” permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (“Eagle Act”) to 30 years for failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
As we discussed in our previous post, in August 2015 the court set aside the 30-year rule on NEPA grounds, concluding that the Service had “failed to show an adequate basis in the record for deciding not to prepare an EIS–much less an EA–prior to increasing the maximum duration for programmatic eagle take permits by sixfold.” The Court found the Service’s reliance on certain U.S. Department of Interior categorical exclusions misplaced. According to the Court, the Service failed to establish that the decision was “administrative” or “procedural” in nature and failed to address concerns by its own experts that the rule revisions might have highly controversial environmental effects. Importantly, however, the court’s decision to set aside the 30-year rule only applied to the 30-year permit tenure provision of the 2013 rule amendments. Other components of the 2013 rule amendments were left intact, including the 5 year permit renewal and assignment provisions.
Continue Reading U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Opts Not to Appeal 30-Year Eagle Rule Decision, Focuses on Development of Eagle Permitting Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Determines Protection for Greater Sage-Grouse No Longer Warranted
In a speech at the Rocky Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced yesterday that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will not list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Finding that protection under the ESA is no longer warranted due to an “unprecedented conservation partnership,” the USFWS announced that it was withdrawing the species from the candidate list. The decision comes roughly a week before a court-ordered deadline for a decision.
Continue Reading U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Determines Protection for Greater Sage-Grouse No Longer Warranted
Court Invalidates 30-Year Permit Provisions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Eagle Permit Rule on NEPA Grounds
As we discussed in this post from May 2014, the American Bird Conservancy (“ABC”) in 2014 filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“USFWS”) 2013 revisions to its eagle permit rule, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). ABC’s challenge related to the revised eagle permit rule that was issued in December 2013 and that extended the maximum term for programmatic Eagle Take Permits under the Eagle Act to 30 years (the “Final 30-Year Rule”), subject to a recurring five-year review process throughout the permit life. Under the previous rule, the maximum term for programmatic permits for incidental “take” of bald and golden eagles was five years.
Continue Reading Court Invalidates 30-Year Permit Provisions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Eagle Permit Rule on NEPA Grounds
USFWS to Evaluate New Incidental Take Permitting Program Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) published notice in the Federal Register announcing that it intends to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement to evaluate the effects of a program that would authorize incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”). Although the Service has MBTA regulations that authorize the issuance of permits to take migratory birds for specific purposes (e.g. scientific collection, bird banding and marking, raptor propagation), there is presently no permit to authorize take that occurs incidental to, and which is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Companies potentially impacted include those involved in the oil and gas sector, telecommunications, energy transmission infrastructure, and solar and wind energy generation.
Through this rulemaking, the Service will evaluate various approaches to regulating incidental take of migratory birds, including:
Continue Reading USFWS to Evaluate New Incidental Take Permitting Program Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
USFWS Publishes Northern Long-Eared Bat Listing Decision, Opts for Interim 4(d) Rule
In a long-anticipated move, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”)has published a final listing decision and interim rule on the northern long-eared bat. The Service listed the northern long-eared bat as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and, rather than publishing a final 4(d) rule, opted to publish an interim 4(d) rule and
Freedom to Contract: PUC Has Jurisdiction to Evaluate Force Majeure Clause Under Idaho Law
This post was written by our colleague Tami Boeck for the Ahead of Schedule construction law blog.
The Idaho Supreme Court recently determined in Idaho Power Company v. New Energy Two, LLC, No. 40882-2013 (Idaho June 17, 2014), that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction to interpret or enforce contracts when given the authority by the parties. In May 2010, IPC and the defendants entered into two energy contracts that were to be completed by a date certain. In advance of the operational dates, the defendants notified IPC of events they claimed were force majeure. Markedly, the defendants’ claim was that the decision-making process of the PUC itself, or the alleged lack thereof, was the force majeure event causing lenders to be “unwilling to lend in Idaho pending the outcome” of the PUC proceedings. IPC filed petitions with the PUC seeking a ruling that there was no force majeure event(s), and that IPC could terminate the contracts. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was denied, and the Idaho Supreme Court heard the issue on a permissive appeal.Continue Reading Freedom to Contract: PUC Has Jurisdiction to Evaluate Force Majeure Clause Under Idaho Law
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Review Eagle Permit Rules
On Friday, June 20, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) announced its plans to engage the public in a review of how permits are issued for the non-purposeful take of bald and golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (“Eagle Act”). This process is a continuation of the Advanced Notice
American Bird Conservancy Sends Notice of Intent to Sue Administration Over Revised Eagle Permit Rule
On April 30, 2014, the American Bird Conservancy (“ABC”) sent a Notice of Intent to Sue (“Notice”) to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service’) Dan Ashe, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and the Bald and Golden