You might assume that if an endangered species is nowhere to be found on your property, you can rest easy. “No,” said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which decided in 2012 that if your land might be a good place for the Dusky Gopher frog to live, you might be subject to development restrictions under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) recently proposed revisions to its Mitigation Policy, which has been in place since 1981. March 8, 2016 Fed. Reg. 12380. The Mitigation Policy serves as “over-arching Service guidance applicable to all actions for which the Service has specific authority to recommend or require the mitigation of impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitat.” This includes development activities with a federal nexus (such as a project requiring a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers), as well as activities that implicate a host of federal statutes including the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, among others. Although the 1981 Mitigation Policy did not apply to conservation of species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the new policy eliminates that exclusion and expressly recognizes that effective mitigation is consistent with and advances the objectives of the ESA. The Service expects to issue policy specific to compensatory mitigation under the ESA that aligns with the objectives of the new Mitigation Policy.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it will publish a final rule in today's Federal Register designating the northern long eared bat as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The listing will become effective May 4, 2015, at which time an interim 4(d) incidental take rule will also take effect.
USFWS will be accepting comments on the interim rule for 90 days, until July 1, 2015. The interim 4(d) rule permits incidental take for all activities taking place outside of areas affected by white nose syndrome. In areas affected by white nose syndrome, the interim rule permits incidental take for forest management (i.e. logging) and maintenance and limited expansion of utility rights-of-way, as long as those activities are conducted according to certain habitat conservation measures such as avoiding hibernacula and avoiding certain types of cutting during summer months.
U.S. District Court Grants Summary Judgment to SunEdison's Oakfield Wind Power Project on All Counts
In an order issued Friday in Protect Our Lakes v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 1:13-cv-402 (D. Me. Feb. 20, 2015), U.S. District Court Judge Jon Levy rejected claims that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permit to the Oakfield wind power project in Aroostook County, Maine violated the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and other environmental laws.
This is the second case in Maine, following Friends of the Boundary Mountains v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 24 F. Supp. 3d 105 (D. Me. 2014), which we blogged about in June, in which the court denied wind power opponents’ attempts to invalidate an Army Corps permit based on alleged violation of BGEPA and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These two Maine cases join a handful of recent opinions in which federal courts have rejected similar challenges to federal approvals issued to wind power projects.
Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) has proposed modifications to the State’s designation of threatened and endangered species. The changes include adding a species of beetle, butterfly and land-snail as endangered, two species of bats as endangered, and a third bat species as threatened. Public hearings are scheduled for August 4 in Portland and August 5 in Farmington; the comment deadline is August 15. IF&W will make any final recommendations for changes but the Legislature retains sole authority to designate a species for inclusion on the list.