Source: https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/publications/court-sets-aside-us-fish-and-wildlife-service-rule-allowing-30-year-eagle-take-permits/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:58:36+00:00

Document:
On August 11, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California set aside a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) rule authorizing 30-year permits for the incidental take of bald and golden eagles (the “30-Year Permit Rule”).1 The 30-Year Permit Rule, which was issued on December 9, 2013, had increased the maximum duration of incidental take permits issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (“BGEPA”) from five years to thirty years.2 The court found that the USFWS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)3 by failing to conduct an environmental review of the 30-Year Permit Rule. As a result of the court’s decision, pending any appeal, the maximum duration for incidental take permits for bald and golden eagles will be five years. The decision will impact long-term financing of wind and other renewable energy projects.
In 2007, the USFWS removed (delisted) the bald eagle from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).4 However, bald and golden eagles remain protected under the BGEPA and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”),5 which prohibit the “take”6 of bald or golden eagles without a permit.7 On September 11, 2009, the USFWS promulgated first-time permit rules under the BGEPA for the take of bald and golden eagles associated with, but not for the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity (the “Five-Year Rule”).8 Under these regulations, the USFWS can issue permits authorizing individual instances of take when the take cannot practicably be avoided.9 The USFWS can also issue “programmatic” permits for up to five years for instances of take that are “reoccurring, [are] not caused solely by indirect effects, and that occur over the long term or in a location or locations that cannot be specifically identified.”10 Currently, there is no means to acquire a programmatic permit under the MBTA.
Separately, on May 2, 2013, the USFWS announced the availability of its Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance: Module 1 - Land-based Wind Energy, Version 2 (“ECPG”).13 The ECPG supplements the USFWS’s March 2012 Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (“WEG”) by providing specific guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. The developers and operators of wind energy projects are not required to comply with the ECPG or the WEG. However, the USFWS believes that following the ECPG will help project developers and operators comply with laws and regulations relating to, and avoid the unintentional take of, eagles.14 The USFWS also has explained that, although following the WEG does not relieve project developers and operators of the responsibility to comply with applicable legal requirements, if a violation occurs, the USFWS will consider documented efforts to follow the WEG in deciding whether to bring an enforcement action.15 The ECPG and WEG are unaffected by the court’s decision to set aside the 30-Year Permit Rule.
Finally, the court found that, even if the subject categorical exclusion applied to the 30 Year Permit Rule, extraordinary circumstances preclude the USFWS from relying on the exclusion.25 The court observed that there is “substantial evidence” that increasing the maximum duration of programmatic eagle take permits may have “highly controversial environmental effects” on bald and golden eagles.26 Among other factors, the court noted (i) the USFWS’ acknowledgement that eagles can be killed by colliding with wind turbines, (ii) the National Park Service’s opposition to the 30-Year Permit Rule, (iii) concerns expressed by USFWS experts regarding the decision to proceed without NEPA review, and (iv) similar concerns expressed by Native American tribes and other environmental stakeholders.
In internal USFWS correspondence, the Eagle Program Director for the Division of Migratory Bird Management, Eliza Savage, who had direct responsibility for drafting the 30 Year Permit Rule, warned “[o]nce again, we find ourselves having taken sloppy action that we will have to do over instead of doing things the way they should have been done to begin with.” In the meantime, the maximum duration for a programmatic eagle take permit will be five years.
 Shearwater v. Ashe, Case No. 14-cv-02830-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015).
 78 Fed. Reg. 73704 (Dec. 9, 2013).
 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq.
 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532, et seq. 72 Fed. Reg. 37,346 (July 9, 2007).
 16 U.S.C. §§ 703, et seq.
 “Take” is defined in the BGEPA to include “pursue, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” 16 U.S.C. § 668c. The USFWS has expanded this definition by regulation to include the term “destroy” in order to ensure that “take” includes destruction of eagle nests, and has further defined the term “disturb” as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause,… injury to an eagle, a decrease in productivity, or nest abandonment.” 50 C.F.R. § 22.3. Under the MBTA, “take” means “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” 50 C.F.R. § 10.12.
 78 Fed. Reg. at 73709.
 78 Fed. Reg. 25758 (May 2, 2013).
 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.3, 1501.4.
 78 Fed. Reg. at 73713 (quoting 43 C.F.R. § 46.210(i)).
 Id. at 35. Because the USFWS must establish the applicability of both portions of the second prong, the court did not address whether the USFWS also erred in determining that potential impacts of the 30-Year Permit Rule “will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.” Id. at 37.
 Id. at 38 (quoting 43 C.F.R. § 46.215(c)).
This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Junaid Chida, an O'Melveny Partner licensed to practice law in California and New York, Eric Rothenberg, an O'Melveny Partner licensed to practice law in Missouri and New York, and John D. Renneisen, an O'Melveny Counsel licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C., contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.

References: v. 
 § 668
 § 22
 § 10
 § 46
 § 46