8 4 [95 O p . A tt’ y NATUR AL RES OU RCES S TATE E ND AN GE RE D S PECI ES A CT

– R E SP ONS I B I L I T I ES OF T HE D E PAR T MEN T OF N ATURAL R ESOURCES , THE P U BL IC S ERVICE C OMMI SS I ON , AN D O T HE R A GENCI ES U NDER T HE E ND AN GE RE D S PECI ES A CT

M ar ch 23, 2010 R E V I S E D The H onor abl e G eor

ge C

. E dw ar ds The H onor abl e W

endel lR

. B ei t

z el T h e H o n o ra b le K e v in Ke lly T he Hon orab l e L eR oy E

. M yers A l l egany Count

y D el egat i on

Y ou have a s ked about t he r es pons i bi l i t i es of t he D epar t m entof N atur al R es our ces ( “D N R ”) , the P ubl i c Ser vi ce Com m i s s i on ( “PSC ”), a nd ot heragenc i es w i t h r es pectt o t he pr ot ect i on of endange r ed s peci es . C i t i ng A ni m al W el f ar e I ns t i t ut e v. B eec h R i dge Ene r gy LLC , 675 F. Supp. 2d 540 ( D

. M d. 2009) , a ca s e i nvol vi ng t he fe der al E ndanger ed S peci es A ct , y ou al s o as k w het her“St at e l aw s i m i l ar l y pr ohi bi t s a corpor at i on fr om s et t i ng up w i nd turbi nes t hat m ayl ead t o t he t aki ng of enda nger ed s peci es . ” In co m par i s on t o t he fe der al s t atut e, the St at e enda nger ed s peci es l aw pr ovi des s i m i l ar , al t hough noti dent i cal , pr ot ect i ons for S tate -liste d th re a ten e d a n d e n d a n g e re d sp e c ies

. G iv e n th a t th e S tate law w a s p a ttern e d a f ter th e f

e d e r a l s tatu te, M a ry lan d c o u rts cons t rui ng t he St at e s t atut e ar e l i kel yt o appl yt he s t andar ds devel oped undert he fe der al s t atut e. I n B eec h R i dge, t he fe d era l d istric t c o u rt g ra n ted a n in ju n c tio n a g a in st a w in d e n e rg yp rojec t in W es tV i r gi ni a af

t eri tw as demonst r at ed thatt he project w as “r eas onabl ycer t ai n” i m m i nentl yt o har m , ki l l , orw ound a l i s t ed endange r ed s peci es and t he devel oper of t he proj ect had notobt ai ned a perm i tal l ow i ng t he inci den t al t aking of an en dan gered species

. T hi s opini on des cr i bes gener al l yt he r ol es of D N R , t he PSC , and cert ai n ot her S t at e agen ci es un der t he Stat e end ang ered speci es l aw s. I n a dd i t i on , i tdi s c us s e s po s s i bl e c on s i de r a t i on by D N R a nd t he PSC of im pact s on endange r ed s peci es w hen t hos e age nci es i m pl ement st at utes go verni ng new po w er generat i ng faci l i t i es.G en. 84] 85 I E n d a n g er ed S p ec ies A cts A. The Fede r al

ESA T he fe der al E ndanger ed Speci es A ct( “fe der al E SA ”) m akes it u n law f u l f o r a n y p e rso n to “ tak e a n y[ e n d a n g e re d ] sp e c ies w ith in t he U ni t e d St a t e s . ” 16 U

. S. C. §1 53 8( a)( 1) ( B)

. The fe de r a l ESA d e f in e s th e ter m “ tak e ” a s “ to h a ra ss , h a rm , p u rsu e , h u n t, sh o o t, w ound, ki l l , t r ap, captur e, or col l ect , or t o at t empt t o engage i n any su ch co n d u ct. ” 1 6 U

. S

. C

. § 1 5 3 2 (19 ). R egu l ati on s def

i ning “ ha rm ” an d “ ha rass” T he r egul at i ons i m pl ement i ng t he fe der al E SA defi ne t he act i vi t i es t hatcons t i tut e an i m p erm is s i bl e “t ake. ” Forexampl e, “har as s ” me an s “an i nt ent i onal ornegl i gentactorom i s s i on w hi ch cr eat es t he l i kel i hood of i nj ur y t o w i l dl i fe by annoy i ng i tt o s uch an ext entas t o s i gni fi cant l ydi s ruptnor m al b eh avi or al pat t erns w hi ch i ncl ude, butar e not l i m i t ed t o, br eedi ng, fee di ng, ors hel t er i ng. ” 50 C FR §17. 3. “H ar m ” i s an act t hat “ac tual l y ki l l s ori nj ur es w i l dl i fe. Such actm ay i ncl ude s i gni fi canthabi t atm odi fi cat i on ordegr adat i on w her e i tactual l y ki l l s or i nj ur es w i l dl i fe bys i gni fi cant l yi m pai r i ng es s ent i al behavi or al pat t erns , i ncl udi ng br eed ing , fee di ng or s hel t er i ng. ” I

d. C i vi land cr i m i nalpenal t i es A p e rso n w h o k n o w in g lytak e s a n e n d a n g e re d sp e c ies in vi ol at i on of t he fe der al E SA i s s ubj ectt o s i gni fi cant ci vi l and cr i m i nal penal t i es . 16 U

. S. C

. §1540( a) ( aut hor i zi ng ci vi l fi nes of up t o $25, 000 per vi ol at i on) ; §1540( b) ( aut hor i zi ng cr i m i nal fi nes of up t o $ 50 , 00 0 a nd i mpr i s on ment for on e y e a r )

. The fe de r a l ESA a u t h o r i z e s c i t i z e n s t o b r i n g s u i t t o e n f o r c e i t s p r o v i s i o n s . 1 6 U. S

. C. § 1 5 4 0 (g ). In c id e n ta l ta k e p e rm its C ongr es s amended t he fede r al E SA i n 1982 t o pr ovi de a “ s afe harbor ” fr om t hes e pena l t i es . I n par t i cul ar , t hatamendm ent e s t a b l i s h e d a n “ i n c i d e n t a l t a k e p e r mi t ” ( “ I T P ” ) p r o c e s s t h a ta l l o ws a n e n tityo r o th e r p e rso n to law f u llytak e a n e n d a n g e re d sp e c ies “ if s uch t aki ng i s i nci dent al t o, and not t he purpos e of, t he ca r r y i ng out of an other w i s e l aw ful act i vi t y . ” 16 U

. S. C

. §1539( a) ( 1) ( B )

. T he B eec h R i dge cour texpl ai ned:8 6 [95 O p . A tt’ y C o n g re ss e sta b lish e d th is p ro c e ss to r edu c e c o n f

l i ct s bet w een s peci es t hr eat ened wi t h e x t i n c t i o n a nd e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t a c ti v it ie s , a n d to enco urage “ c r e a t i ve part nershi ps” b e tw e e n p u b lic a n d p ri v a te s e c to rs . B eec h R i dge Energy , 6 7 5 F

. S u p p . 2 d at 54 4 (cit ati o n s o m it ted). S t a n d a r d f o rs h o wi n gth a ta p r o

j e c two u ld

“ h a r m” T he B eec h R i dge deci s i on i l l us tr at es t he appl i cat i o n of t he “harm ” pr ong of t he E SA

. I n B eec h R i dge , t he pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed an act i on s eeki ng decl ar at or yand i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tB eec h R i dge E ner gyL L C , al l egi ng t hat t he construct i on and fut ur e oper at i on of i t s w i nd ene rgy p r oj ecti n W es tV i r gi ni a w oul d t ake e ndanger ed I n d i a n a b a t s , i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e f e d e r a l ES A, 1 6 U. S

. C. § 1 5 3 8 (a )( 1 )( B ). B e e c h R id g e E n e rg yh a d n o t o b ta in e d a n IT P

. T he ques t i on befor e t he courtw as w het herB ee ch R i dge E ner gys houl d have obt ai ned an I T P becaus e t he w i nd turbi nes p o tential lyw o u ld tak e the Ind iana b ats p rese n t atthe p rojec t si te. In as s es s i ng t hi s cl ai m , t he cour t obs er ved t hatt he fe der al E SA i s s i l ent on t he r equi s i t e degr ee of cer t ai nt yfores t abli sh ing a “t ake. ” 675 F .S u p p 2 d a t 5 6 2 . A f ter re v iew in g th e h o ld in g s o f o th e r c o u rts cons t ruing t he fe der al E SA and the hi s t or yof t he r egul at i ons adopt ed byt he fe der al Fi s h and W i l dl i fe Ser vi ce, i t hel d t hat “i n an act i on br ought under [§1538] of t he E SA , a pl ai nt i ff mustes t abl i s h, b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e , tha t th e c h a llen g e d a c tiv ityis r eas onabl ycer tai n t o i m m i nent l yhar m , ki l l , orw ound t he l i s t ed s peci es . ” I

d. at 563. T he cour t l eft open t he pos s i bi l i t yt hata l es s er stan d ar d m i ghtappl yi f “ha r as s m ent ” w er e t he bas i s of t he al l eged ta k e . See i d. at 56 1 n . 2 6 , 5 6 3 n . 2 9

. O n the f ac ts of the c ase b ef

o re i t , t he cour tconcl uded t hat pl ai nt i ffs had met t he pot ent i al l yhi gher s t a nd a r d a nd t ha t Bee c h Ri dg e Ene r gy s ho ul d ha ve ob t a i ne d a n I TP. A ccor d i n g l y , t h e c o u r te n j o i n e d t h e c o mpa n yf r o m bu i l d i ng addi t i onal w i nd turbi nes and fr om oper at i ng t hos e al r eadyunder c o n s tr u c tio n b u ilt u n le s s th e b a ts w e re in h ib e rn a tio n . Id

. at580- 81. Standa rd f

or show i ng tha ta p roj ectw ou ld “ ha rass” W ith resp ec t t o the s tand ard fo r de m o n str ati n g w h eth er a pr oj ectw oul d “har as s ” an enda nger ed s peci es – a ques t i on l eftopen i n B eec h R i dge – t her e ar e few cas es t hat cons t rue t hat t er m . In B a b b itt v . Sw e e t Ho m e C h a p te r, 5 1 5 U. S

. 6 8 7 ( 1 9 9 5 ) , t h e S u p r e meG en. 84] 87 C o u rt su g g e ste d th a t th e ter m “ h a ra ss ” e n c o m p a ss e s d e lib e ra te act i ons ai m ed att he en d an ger ed s peci es and w oul d noti ncl ude an i ndi r ectm eans of i nj ur i ng w i l dl i fe s uch as habi t atm odi fi ca t i on – w h ich th e C o u rth eld w a s co v ere d b ythe term “h arm . ” T h e C o u rt sta ted , in r e lev a n t p a rt:

... i f t h e s t a tu t o r yt e r m “ h a r m” encompas s es s uch i ndi r ectm eans of ki l l i ng and i nj ur i ng w i l dli fe as habi t at m o d if ica tio n , the o th e r te rm s liste d in [ th e d e f in itio n o f

“ ta k e ” ] – “ h a ra s s ,”
“ p u rs u e ,” “ h u n t,” “ s h o o t,” “ w o u n d ,” “ki l l , ” “tr ap, ” “captur e, ” and “col l ect ” – gen eral l y ret ai n i nd epen den tm eanings. M o st o f th o se ter m s re f

e r to d e li b e r a te act ion s m or e fr equent l yt han does “harm , ” ... I n addi t i on, m os tof t he ot herw or ds i n t he def

i ni t i on des cr i be ei t heract i ons fr om w hi ch habi t at m o d if ic a tio n d o e s n o t u su a llyre su lt ( e. g. , “p u rsu e ,” “ h a r a s s” ) o r e f f e c ts to w hi ch ac t i vi t i es t h at m odi fyhabi t atdo notus u all yl ead ( e .g ., “ tr a p ,”
“ c o lle c t” ).... 515 U

. S. at698 n. 11. T he low er courtdecis i on s t hat con stru e t he ter m “harass” gener al l ypar aphr as e t he def i ni t i on i n t he fe der al r egul ati o n. T he N in th C irc u it h a s s tate d th a t a p a rtya ttem p tin g to p ro v e a “ tak e ” in t he form of har as s m entm us t demonst r at e “by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatt he pr opos ed cons t ruct i on w oul d ... m or e l i kel yt han nothar as s [the enda nger ed s peci es ] byannoy i ng i t t o s uch an ext ent as to d isr u pti t s nor m al behavi or al pat t erns . ” See D ef ender s of W ild life v . B e r n a l, 2 0 4 F .3 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 5 (9 C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). th
I n Mar bl ed Mur r el et v. Paci f i c Lum berC o. , 880 F .S u p p . 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 6 7 (N

. D

. C al. 1 9 9 5 ), the f ed era l distri ct co u rt gr ant ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n par tbeca us e i tfound t hata pr opos ed t i m berhar ves tdur i ng t he br eedi ng s eas on of an e ndanger ed s peci es “cr eat es t he l i kel i hood of i nj u ry [to t he s peci es ] byannoy i ng t hem t o s uch an ext entt hati tw i l l s i gni fi cant l ydi s ruptt hei rnor m al behavi orpat t er ns . ” O n appea l , t he N i nt h C i r cui taff i r m ed t he gr ant of i nj unct i ve r el i ef, butdi d notdi s cus s t he har as s m ents tandar d or t he s uffi ci ency of t he evi dence under t hat s t andar d, as i tdet er m i ned8 8 [95 O p . A tt’ y

The a dverb “ actually ” appe ars be forethe ver bs in the fede ral 1 regulation defining“har

m.” See 50 CFR §17.3. That word a nd ref erences to habit at m o dification and de gradation wereremove d from, but later re ins tate d in , the fe de ral re gulatio n whe n a n atte mpt wa s ma deto re write it in 1981. See46 Fe d.Reg . 29490-94 (June 2, 1981); 46 Fed.Reg . 54748- 01 (Nove mber 4, 1981). I n our view, the absenc e of that adverb from the State definition o f the ter m does not cre ate a

meaning ful diffe renc e be tw e e n th e fe de ral and

Statede fi nition s. t hat t he t i m ber harvest w ou l d “harm ” t he endan gere d sp eci es. Ma rb ledMu rr e let v . B a b b it , 8 3 F .3 d 1 0 6 0 , 1 0 6 8 & n . 5 (9 C ir

. th 1 9 9 6 ), cer t

. deni ed , 5 1 9 U

. S

. 1 1 0 8 (19 9 7 ). I f, as s ugges t ed i n t he Sw eet H om e C hapt er d ec isi o n , the term “har as s ” r efe r s onl yt o del i ber at e ef for t s t o aff

ectw i l dl i fe a nd does notor di nar i l yi ncl ude habi t atm odifi ca ti o n , i tm aynotappl yt o a w i nd turbi ne pr oj e c t

. I n a ny e ve nt , i t a pp e a r s fr om the e xt ant cas e l aw t hat , t o obt ai n r el i ef on the bas i s t hat a pr oj ectw oul d “har as s ” an e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s , a p l a i n t i f f w o u l d h a v e t o d e m o n s t r a t e , b y a p repond erance of t he evi den ce, t hat i t w as “m ore l i kely t han n o t” t hatt h e p rojec tw oul d annoyt he enda nger ed s peci es t o s uch an extentas t o d i srup tno rm al beh aviorpatt erns. B. The State ESA M ary l and has tw o v i rtuall yi den tica l en d a n g e re d sp e c ies law s: t he Endanger ed Speci es of Fi s h C ons ervat i on A ct , A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, N atur al R es o ur ces A r t i cl e ( “N R ”) , §4- 2A

- 01 et s eq .; a n d t h e No n g a me a n d E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s Co n s e r v a t i o n Ac t , NR § 1 0- 2A

- 01 et

s eq . ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e “ S t a t e E S A” )

. T h e s e l a ws p r o h i b i tt h e “ t a k e ” o f

a n ye n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s o f f i s h o rwi l d l i f

e . NR §4- 2A

- 05( c) ( 2) ; N R §10- 2A

- 05( c) ( 2)

. T he st atut es al s o pr ohi bi tt he “t ake” of anyfi s h o r w il d l i fe de emed byD N R t o be “i n need of cons er vat i on, ” exc eptas pr ovi ded by rul es or r egul at i ons adopt ed by D N R . N R § 4 -2 A -0 3 (c ); N R § 1 0 -2 A -0 3 (c ). D ef i ni t i ons of

key t er m s s i m i l art o f

eder all aw The de fi ni t i on of

“ t a ke ” i s t he s a me a s t he fe de r a l ESA d e f in i tio n . See N R §4- 2A

- 01( h) ; N R §10- 2A

- 01( h)

. D N R has a d o p te d re g u la tio n s to im p le m e n t th e S ta te E S A

. See C O MAR 0 8

. 0 3

. 0 8

. Th o s e r e g u l a t i o n s c o n t a i n d e f i n i t i o n s o f

t h e t e r ms “ h a r a s s , ” CO M AR 0 8

. 0 3

. 0 8

. 0 1 B( 5 ) , a n d “ h a r m, ” CO M AR 08

. 03

. 08

. 01 B (6) , t hat m i rr or t he fe deral E S A regul at i on s. 1G en. 84] 89

As explained in the nextsection of this opinion, DNR may i s s ue 2 permits for c ertain other re asons. N o M a ryla n d a p p e lla te c o u rt h a s c o n s tr u e d th e te rm s “ ta k e ,” “h arm , ” or “h ara ss” as th ey ap p ea r in th e S tat e E S A

. H o w ev er, t hes e ar e t he s ame ke y t er m s t hatappea ri n t he fe der al E SA and t he St at e ES A i s des i gned s peci fi cal l yt o coor di nat e w i t h t he fe der al E S A

. See N R § 4 -2 A -0 2 ; N R § 1 0 -2 A -0 2 (3 ). T h u s, it se e m s lik e ly t hatM ar y l and cour t s w oul d appl yt he s ame s t andar ds appl i ed under the f ed era l l aw as o u tl ined in the p rev iou s sec ti o n o f th is l ett er. C r eat i on of

l is t s of s peci es T he St at e ES A encompas s es anys peci es w hi ch i s cons i der ed e n d a n g e r e d o r t h r e a t e n e d u n d e rt h e f e d e r a l E S A. NR § 4

- 2 A01( d) ( i ) ; N R §10- 2A

- 01( d) ( i )

. I n addi t i on, t he S ecr et aryof N atur al R e s o u r c e s i s t o d e v e l o p a n d ma i n t a i n l i s t s o f t h r e a t e n e d and endange r ed s peci es . N R §4- 2A

- 04; N R §10- 2A

- 04. I nter es t ed per s ons m aypet i t i on t he D i r ect orof th e W i l dl i fe a nd H er i t age S e r v ic e to a d d a sp e c ies to th e S tate list, or to re m o v e o n e f ro m it. C O M A R 08. 03. 08. 02. R em edi es A per s on w ho t akes an enda nger ed s peci es pr ot ec te d byt he St at e ES A i s s ubj ect t o a fi ne of not m or e t han $1, 000, i m pr i s onm ent for not m or e t han one y ear , orbot h. N R §4- 2A

- 07; N R §10- 2A

- 07. H ow ever , t he St at e E SA does notauthor i ze c i vi l penal t i es orci t i zen su its. N o r is the re a g e n e ra l p ro v isio n f o r a n in c id e n tal ta k e p e rm it. 2 A n i nci dent al t ake pe r m i tm aybe i s s ued, but onl y fort he enda nger ed Pur i t an T i ger B eet l e, N R §10- 2A

- 05. 1, ort he enda nger ed D el m ar va Fox Squi r r el , N R §10- 2A

- 05. 2. II

St at e A gency R es ponsi bi l i t i es Y ou as ked about t he r es pons i bi l i t i es of var i ous St at e age nci es u n d e r th e S tate E S A . T h e sta tu te a c c o rd s p rim a ryre sp o n sib ili tyto D N R , b u t al s o r equi r es ot herSt at e age nci es t o t ake a ccountof e n d a n g e re d s p e c ie s in c e rt a in c o n te x ts

.9 0 [95 O p . A tt’ y A. DNR T he s t atut e r equi r es D N R t o per fo rm cer t ai n funct i ons and aut hor i zes i tt o t ake o theract i ons . D N R i s t o conductongoi ng i nvest igat i ons of fi s h and nongame w i l dl i fe i n or dert o devel op cons er vat i on pr ogr ams and r egul at i ons t hatl i m i tt he t aki n g, pos s es s i on, t r ans por t at i on, expor t , and sal e of s peci es deemed t o be i n need of cons er vat i on. N R §4- 2A

- 03; N R §10- 2A

- 03. I n addi t i on t o t hos e s peci es deemed “enda nger ed” or“t hr eat ened” undert he fede r al E SA , D N R i s t o det er m i ne w het heranyot hers peci es of fi s h, w i l dl i fe, or p lant “nor m al l yoccurr i ng w i t hi n t he St at e i s an endange r ed ort hr eat ened s peci es ” due t o, among ot herr eas ons , t he “t hr eat ened de s t ruct i on, m odi fi cat i on or cur t ai l m ent of i t s habi t ator r ange. ” N R §4- 2A

- 04( b) ; N R §10- 2A

- 04( b)

. T he s t atut e s peci fi es pr ocedur es foraddi ng o r re m o vi ng a s peci es fr om t he l i s tof t h r e a t e n e d o r e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s . NR § 4

- 2 A- 0 4 ( d ) , - 0 5 ( a ) ; NR §10- 2A

- 04( d) , - 05( a)

. D N R i s t o cr eat e pr ogr ams forcons er vat i on of enda nger ed ort hr eat ened f i s h, w i l dl i fe, and p la nt s , i ncl udi ng acqui s i t i on of l and and a quat i c habi t at

. N R §4- 2A

- 06( a) ; N R §10- 2 A -06 (a). T he St at e E SA aut hor i zes t he Secr et aryof N atur al R es our ces t o i s s ue perm i t s for act i vi t i es ot her w i s e forbi dden by t he s t atut e “f or s ci ent i fi c purpos es ” or “t o enhanc e t he propa gat i on or s ur vi val of t he a f f e c ted sp e c ies .” N R § 4 -2 A -0 5 (f ); N R § 1 0 -2 A -0 5 (f

); see al so C O M A R 08. 03. 08. 03. T he Secr etary m ayal s o i s s ue perm i t s for a q u a c u l tu r e o p e r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s . NR § 4

- 2 A0 5 (f). D N R m ayent eri nt o cons erva ti on agr eement s w i t h pol i t i cal su b d iv isio n s, o th e r sta te s , fe d e ra l ag e n c ies , an d e v e n in d iv id u a ls c o n c e r n i n g c o n s e r v a t i o n o f t h r e a t e n e d o r e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s . NR § 4 -2A -06 (b); N R § 1 0 -2A -06 (b). F in a ll y, D N R ’s N a tu ra l R e so u rc e s P o lice a re a u th o riz e d to m ake a r r es t s , conducts ear ches , and sei ze evi dence and contr aband r e l a t e d t o c r i mi n a l v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e E S A. NR § 4

- 2 A- 0 7 ; NR §10- 2A

- 07. I f anyfi s h, w i l dl i fe, pl ant s , orr el at ed i t ems ar e s ei zed as par tof an i nves t i gat i on, D N R m ayover s ee thei rs afe keepi ng pr i or to a n yf o rf e itu re o f th o s e ite m s . Id

. B . O therState A gencies T he St at e ES A r equi r es t hatal l “St at e depa r t m ent s and ag en cies, in con su lt ati o n w ith an d w ith the assist an ce o f [ D N R ],G en. 84] 91

Ch a p ter 3 1 , L aw s o f

M ar yla n d 1 9 7 1

. T h e c ur

r e nt v e r s io no f

the 3 Act is now codifiedin different sec tions in several a rticles of the Annotated Code. s hal l ut i l i ze t hei r aut hor i t i es i n fur t her ance of t he [St at e ES A ]

... by t aki ng any act i on nece s s ary t o i ns ur e thatact i ons aut hor i zed, funded, orcarr i ed outby t hem do not j eopar di ze the cont i nued exi s t ence of t he enda nger ed s peci es ort hr eat ened s peci es orr es ul ti n t he des t ruct i on or m odi fi cat i on of habi t at of t he spec i es w hi ch i s deemed b y the S ec retary to b e crit ical. ” N R § 4 -2A -06 (c); N R § 1 0 -2A -06 (c). T h is p ro v isio n a p p lies to a ll S tate a g e n c ies

. It c a n c o m e in to play , forexampl e, w hen the M ary l and D epar t m entof t he E nvi r onm ent( “M D E ”) i s s ues per m i t s i n connec t i on w i t h i t s r evi ew of pr oj ect s undert he N ont i dal W et l ands Pr ot ect i on A ct , A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, E nvi r onm en t A rt i cl e ( “EN ”) , §5- 901 et s eq. If a lan d o w n e r p ro p o se s to c a rryo u t re g u late d a c tiv itie s w ith in nont i dal w etl ands, t he l andow nerm us tfi r s tappl yforand obt ai n a perm i tfrom M D E

. W hen revi ew i ng app l i cat i on s, M D E deter m i nes, th ro u g h c o n su ltat io n w ith D N R , w h e th e r th e p ro p o se d p rojec t w ill h a v e a n a d v e rse im p a c t o n a listed sp e c ies o r its h a b itat. If it w il l, M D E eval uat es opt i ons forr econf i gur i ng t he proj ectt o avoi d t he i m pact , and i f t he i m pacti s unavoida b le , r equi r es m i t i gat i on m eas ur es t hatensur e t hatt he pr oj ectw i l l not“j eopar di ze the cont i nued exi s t ence of” a l i s t ed spec i es or “r es ul t i n t he des t ruct i on o r m o d if ic a tio n o f

” th e s p e c ie s ’ c r itic a l h a b ita t. See NR § 4

- 2 A0 6 (c); N R § 1 0 -2A -06 (c). C . P ubli c Ser vi ce Com m is s i on R es pons i bi l i t i es underSt at e ESA Y ou s pe c i fi c a l l ya s ked a bo utt he r e s po ns i bi l i t i e s of t he PSC w i t h r es pect t o endange r ed s peci es . T he St at e ES A i t s el f does not as s i gn anypar t i cu lar respons i bi l i t yt o t he PSC t hati s di s t i nctfr om o t h e ra g e n c i e s . L i k e o t h e ra g e n c i e s , t h e P S C i s t o c o n s u l twi t h DNR as nece s s ar yt o ens ur e t hati t s act i ons do not j eopar di ze the exi s t ence of an e ndanger ed ort hr eat ened s peci es or r es ul ti n t he des t ruct i on or m odi fi cat i on o f cr i t i cal habi t at

. I n addi t i on, undera l aw t hat pr edat es t he S t at e E SA – t he P ow erPl antSi t i ng A ctof 1971 ( “Si t i ng A ct ”) – t he PSC i s obl i gat ed t o cons ul t w i t h D N R conce r ni ng t he

3 envi r onm ent al r ami fi cat i ons of cer t ai n m at t er s befor e it

. T h at cons ul t at i on m ayi ncl ude t he i m pactof a pr opos al on endange r ed s peci es . W e des cr i be t hatl aw i n gr eat erdet ai l i n t he nexts ect i on.9 2 [95 O p . A tt’ y

The Siting Ac t predates the deregulation of elec tric g enerat ion. 4 The Ac t was written on the premise that only vertically integrate d utilit ies un de r the super

vis ion of thePSC w ou ld b uil d n e w g e ne ra tio n. As a conseque nce, utilities acquire d power plant sites far in advanc e of neede d c on str uc tio n. Ac c ordin g ly , th e languag e in t heSiti ngAc t r e fers to pr e lim ina ry sit e e va luatio ns and

10 -ye ar p lans wh ic h n o lo ng e r a pp ly to the deve lopment of g eneration in Maryland

. However, the f undamental requirem en ts of the Siting Act a re still observed, e ven though what are commonly

thought of

as public utiliti es no longer build new g eneration. In p artic ula

r, thede re gulatio n la

w re qu ir e s th at any “pe rs on ” int e ndingto construct a

g eneratingstation obtain a CPC N. Chap t er s 3,4, L aws of Maryland 1999, c o di

f i e d i n re le va n t p ar t in P UC §7 -2 07 ; se eals o COMAR 20.79. R es pons i bi l i t i es underSi t i ng A ct T he Si t i ng A ctes t abl i s hes a l i cens i ng pr oces s forcer t ai n new gener at i on fac i l i t i es t hati nt egr at es a com pr ehens i ve eval uat i on of a pr opos ed cons t ruct i on s i t e and the i m pactof the pr oj ecton t he s u rr o u n d in g c o m m u n ity a n d th e S ta te

. S e e g e n e ra lly A n not at ed C ode of M ary land, Publ i c U t i l i t yC om pani es A r t i cl e ( “PU C ”) , §7- 207 et s eq. ; N R §§3- 304 and 3- 306. I n par t i cul ar , t he PSC deci des 4 w h e th e r to iss u e a c e rtific a te o f p u b lic c o n v e n ien c e a n d n e c e ss ity (“ C P C N ” ) a u th o riz in g c o n stru c tio n o f a n e w f

a c ili ty . T h is eval uat i on pr oces s m ayr equi r e the P SC t o denya par t i cul ar appl i cat i on or , m or e fr equent l y , i m pos e l i m i t at i ons on t he pr opos ed c o n stru c tio n d u e to f

in d in g s a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s o f o th e r S tate a g e n c ie s re v ie w in g th e p ro p o s a l in c o n c e rt w ith th e P S C

. U ndert he Si t i ng A ct, t he PSC i s t he pr i nci pal l i cens i ng aut hor i t yfornew gener at i on i n M ary land, buti s s ubj ectt o a r equi r ement t o eval uat e and b alan ce a number of fa ct or s as par tof th e d e c isio n m a k in g p ro c e ss . P U C § 7 -2 0 7 (e ). B e y o n d th is cons i der at i on of s peci fi ed fa ct or s , t he PSC i s r equi r ed t o ens ur e t hat i t s appr oval of t he pr oj ectand anycondi t i ons impose d on t he d ev elop er m ee t State an d fe d era l st atu to ry an d reg u lat o ry re q u ire m e n ts a s d e ter m in e d b yM D E a n d , m o re im p o rta n tlyf o r th is i s s ue, by a det er m i nat i on by D N R t hat a par t i cul ar s i t e i s s ui t abl e for th e p ro p o s e d c o n s tr u c tio n . See PU C §7- 208. A s a t hr es hold i s s ue, t he Si t i ng A ctr equi r es t he Secr et aryof N a tu ra l R e so u rc e s to m a k e a p re lim in a ryd e te r m in a tio n th a t a pr opos ed s i t e i s s ui t abl e fort he pr opos ed cons t ruct i on. N R §3- 304. A m o n g th e re a so n s f

o r d e ter m in in g a site , o r a p o rtio n o f a site , is u n su itab le m a y b e th e p re se n c e o f sp e c ies p ro tec ted u n d e r th e S tateG en. 84] 93

For examp l e, i na CPCN procee ding se veral year s ag o involving 5 an app li c ati o n f

o r a 4 0 me g aw att w in d f a c il it y in G ar r e tt Co unty, the Secre tary of Natural Resourc es dee med a por tion of a proposed site for a n array of wind turbines “ not suitable,” in part because of the potential for construction to re sult in a “take”of protect ed s p ecie s. The Secretar y de e me d th e re ma ind e r o f t hesit e su ita

ble and re c omm e nd e d th at th e PSC grant the CPC N ex cept to limit the project to suitable are as. SeeL etter of Secre tary C. Ronald Fra

nks (Novembe r 2, 2005) &Initial Recommended Conditi on 16 filed as Docke t Item 101. In the M atter of the Application Of Sy nerg ics Wind Energy , LL C. for a Cer tificate of Public Convenience An d N e c e ssi ty to Constru c t a 40 -M W Wind

Pow e r F a c ili ty

in G arre tt County , Maryland, PSC Case No. 9008 (“CaseNo. 9008" ). The Sec reta ry relied on a

n ag ency revie w of the p ro p o s ed site that found a number of State-listed specie s, particula rly in the mid-portion of the site. SeeCa se N o . 9 0 0 8 , D o c k e t Ite ms , 5 2 , 7 8 , an d 8 8

. In th e CP CN p r ocee ding, the PSC hearing e x aminer a ccepted the Secretar y ’s re commendation and issued a proposed order that grante d a C PCN for the suitableportions of the site, but prohi b i t ed construction in the unsuitable portion of the site. SeeCase No. 9008, Doc ket Item 125 (Oc tober 31, 2006). Sub se qu e nt l e g isl atio n c re ate d a n e xcepti on to th e CPCN r e qu i r e m e ntf

o r w i n d g e n e r at i o nf

a c i l i t i e s o f

7 0 m e g aw att s o r

l e s s. Ch a p ter 1 6 3 , L aw s o f

M ar yla n d 2 0 07, n o w codified as PUC §7-207.1. Th at prov isi on

a lso e sta bli sh e s an a

bb re viate d a

pp ro val proc e ss f

or the se fac iliti es that does not include thesame c omprehe nsi ve environmental re view p ro vid e d b y

theCPCNproc e ss. Ho we ve r, the P S C wou ld s til l have to takethe State ESA into acc ount in impl ementingthat provision. E SA

. I f, aft ereval uat i on of t he envi r onm ent al as s es s m entdone by th e re v iew in g a g e n c ies , the S e c re tar y f in d s tha t co n stru c tio n w o u ld r es ul ti n unacc ept abl e i m pact s , t he Secr et arym aydeem the s i t e, or a port i o n t h e r e o f

, u n s u i t a b l e . I n t h a te v e n t , t h e PS C ma yn ot appr ove t he cons t ruct i on unl es s and unt i l t he condi t i on orcondi t i ons t hat sup po rtt he S ecret ary ’s deter m i nati on are r em ov ed o r ot herw i se s at i s fac t or i l ym i t i gat ed. N R §3- 304. A s a fur t herl i m i t at i on on t he PSC ’ s di s cr et i on, t he Si t i ng A ct r equi r es D N R and M D E t o conduct stud ies o f th e e ff

ec ts of the p rop o sed p rojec t on ce rt ain o f th e S tat e’s r es our ces and forw ar d t hos e s tudi es an d r ecomm endat i ons t o t he PSC as par tof t he C PC N pr oces s . N R §3- 306. 59 4 [95 O p . A tt’ y III C oncl usi on I n compar i s o n t o t he fe der al E SA , t he St at e ES A pr ovi des s i m i l ar , al t hough noti dent i cal , p r o t e c t i o n s f o rSt at e- l i s t ed t hr eat ened and enda nger ed s peci es . G i ven t hat the S tat e ES A w as pat t erned a ft e r t he fe de r a l s t a tut e , M a r y l a nd c ou r t s c on s t rui ng t he St a t e ESA a r e l i k e l yt o a p p l yt h e s t a n d a r d s d e v e l o p e d u n d e rt h e f e d e r a l E S A. I n B eec h R i dge, t he fe der al di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed an i nj unct i on ag ains ta w i nd ener gypr oj ecti n W es tV i r gi ni a af t eri tw as d e m o n stra ted th a t th e p rojec t w a s “ re a so n a b lyc e rta in ” im m in e n tly t o har m , ki l l , orw ound a l i s t ed enda nger ed s peci es and t he deve l oper of t he pr oj ect had not obt ai ned a per m i t al l ow i ng t he i n cident al ta k in g o f a n e n d a n g e re d s p e c ie s . T he St at e ES A ch ar ges D N R w i t h carr y i ng outpart i cul ar f u n c tio n s. I t a lso re q u ire s a ll S tate a g e n c ies , in c o n su ltatio n w ith D N R , t o ens ur e t hatt hei r ac ti o n s do notj eopar di ze e ndanger ed or t h r e a t e n e d s p e c i e s . F i n a l l y , t h e P S C i s t o o b t a i n t h e v i e ws o f DNR as t o t he s ui t abi l i t y of ener gy pr oj ect s , i ncl udi ng w i nd pr oj ect s t hat s at i s fycert ai n cr i t er i a, w hen i tdeci des w het her t o i s s ue a CP C N for su c h a p rojec t. D ougl as F. G ans l er A t t or neyG ener al R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef Counsel O pi ni ons and A dvi ce

E di tor ’s N

ote: T hi s opi ni on w as or i gi nal l yi s s ued i n s l i ght l ydi ffe r entfor m as a l et t erof advi ce.