Source: http://ma.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170607_0000168.C01.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 08:37:13
Document Index: 47273056

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 791', '§ 1536', '§ 402', '§\n1538', '§ 1532', '§\n1536', '§ 402', '§ 701', '§ 706', '§\n1536', '§ 825', '§\n825', '§ 825', '§ 825', '§ 703', '§ 704']

| Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service (Noaa Fisheries)
Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service (Noaa Fisheries)
MAINE COUNCIL OF THE ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION; NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF MAINE; KENNEBEC VALLEY CHAPTER OF TROUT UNLIMITED; and MAINE RIVERS, Plaintiffs, Appellants,v.NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NOAA FISHERIES); BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE SERVICES MAINE, LLC; BROOKFIELD POWER U.S. ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; BROOKFIELD WHITE PINE HYDRO, LLC; MERIMIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and HYDRO-KENNEBEC, LLC, Defendants, Appellees.
MAINE [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Russell B. Pierce, Jr., with whom Norman, Hanson &
DeTroy, LLC, and Charles Owen Verrill, Jr., were on brief,
W. McArdle, Attorney, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Env't
& Natural Resources Div., with whom Ellen J.
Durkee and Robert P. Williams, Attorneys, U.S. Dep't of
Justice, Env't & Natural Resources Div.;
John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General; and John P.
Almeida, Attorney Advisor, U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were on
brief, for appellee National Marine Fisheries Service.
Matthew W. Morrison, with whom Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP was on brief, for appellees Brookfield Renewable
Services Maine, LLC; Brookfield Power U.S. Asset Management,
LLC; Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Merimil Limited
Partnership; and Hydro-Kennebec LLC.
appeal is from the district court's dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction of an action brought by the Plaintiff-Appellants
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They sought
review of two biological opinions issued to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by the National Marine
Fisheries Service[1] evaluating requested modifications of
licenses to operate hydropower dams. We affirm.
power companies (Brookfield Renewable Services Maine, LLC;
Brookfield Power U.S. Asset Management, LLC; Brookfield White
Pine Hydro, LLC; Merimil Limited Partnership; and
Hydro-Kennebec, LLC) sought to modify the terms of existing
licenses to operate four hydropower dams on the Kennebec
River in Maine, which are subject to licensing by FERC,
acting under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et
seq. Because the river is a traditional waterway for spawning
Atlantic salmon, a protected species under the terms of the
Endangered Species Act, FERC was required to obtain
biological opinions (called BiOps) from the Fisheries
Service, on whether operating the dams under the proposed
license modifications would jeopardize survival of the salmon
species or degrade its environment. See 16 U.S.C.
§ 1536(a)(2), (b)(3); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a), (g),
(h). The Fisheries Service found no jeopardy to the species
from the proposed modifications and no threat of degradation.
It did, however, find that the changes proposed would result
in the incidental "taking" of individual fish among
the protected population. See 16 U.S.C. §
1538(a)(1)(B) (prohibiting the "take" of an
endangered species); id. § 1532(19) (defining
"take" to include "harm" and
"kill"). Consequently, it issued an
"incidental take statement, " setting forth
measures to minimize the take and providing a safe harbor for
those (including FERC and its employees) who act in accord
with such measures and whose actions might otherwise violate
the Endangered Species Act. See id. §
1536(b)(4), (o)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i).
BiOps, with their incidental take statements, drew immediate
objection from the Plaintiff-Appellants environmental
organizations participating in the licensing proceedings
(Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, Natural
Resources Council of Maine, Kennebec Valley Chapter of Trout
Unlimited, and Maine Rivers). They challenged the statements
in this district court action against the Fisheries Service
and the power companies, brought under the provisions of
Section 10 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706,
claiming that the BiOps were arbitrary and capricious agency
actions, id. § 706(2)(A), which violated
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §
1536. While the case was pending, FERC granted the license
modifications by orders adopting the terms of the BiOps. The
district court then dismissed the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, relying on section 313(b) of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b), which vests
jurisdiction of appeals from such FERC orders in the courts
of appeals.[2] This appeal followed, as did the
Appellants' filing for review of the FERC orders in the
agree with the district court that time and events have
eliminated whatever claims of district court jurisdiction to
review the BiOps the Appellants might have raised, whether
sound or not, when this action was filed. So far as the
appeal concerns the BiOp with respect to the Hydro-Kennebec
dam affecting Waterville, Winslow, and Benton, Maine, the
action is moot by virtue of the terms of the BiOp itself,
which expired on December 31, 2016. As for the BiOp
addressing the other three dams, FERC's decision to
modify the licenses by terms that incorporated that BiOp
changed the relevant facts as alleged when the district court
issued, the FERC order was unquestionably subject to the
Federal Power Act's provision for direct appellate
jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, 16 U.S.C. §
825l(b). The Supreme Court has made it clear that
the jurisdiction provided by § 825l(b) is
"exclusive, " not only to review the terms of the
specific FERC order, but over any issue "inhering in the
controversy." City of Tacoma v.
Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 336 (1958). Thus,
Columbia, where the Appellants have filed their petition for
review of FERC's orders, has exclusive jurisdiction over
the attacks on the BiOps, on two separate and independently
sufficient grounds: as it was free to do, FERC incorporated
the BiOps in its own orders, and the BiOps were by any
measure "inher[ent]" in the statutory process for
consideration of the license modifications. The Appellants
accordingly have nowhere else to go but to the courts of
appeals, where they are afforded the opportunity to litigate
just what they claimed in their attempt to proceed in the
Appellants try to avoid this conclusion by pressing two
arguments, neither of which avails them. They say, first,
that the scope of appeal under § 825l(b) is
narrower than the review that would be afforded on a district
court action under the APA: that the reach of the court of
appeals goes only as far as considering whether FERC was
arbitrary or capricious in accepting the BiOps as recommended
by the Fisheries Service, whereas in review under the APA the
district court could examine the BiOps directly for
arbitrariness or capriciousness on the part of the Fisheries
Service in issuing them. The former, they say, is not an
"adequate" counterpart of the latter. See
5 U.S.C. § 703 (providing that "[t]he form of
proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory
review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court
specified by statute, " so long as that specified review
proceeding is not "inadequa[te]"); id.
§ 704 (authorizing judicial review of final agency
action under the APA where there is "no other adequate
remedy in a court").
argument for inadequacy fails. Not only have the Appellants
found no case with reasoning that supports them, but the
cases that have considered the scope of review in a court of
appeals under the special Power Act provision have come down
against the Appellants&#39; argument, seeing no good reason
to read "limited" into the Supreme Court&#39;s
understanding of "exclusive" jurisdiction. See
City of Tacomav.FERC, 460 F.3d 53,
76 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Cal. Save Our Streams Council,
Inc.v.Yeutter, 887 F.2d 908, 911-12
(9th Cir. 1989); City of Tacomav.Nat&#39;l Marine Fisheries Serv., 383 F.Supp.2d 89,
92-93 (D.D.C. 2005); Idaho Rivers Unitedv.Foss, 373 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1161 (D. Idaho 2005). The
first of these cases is, of course, from the court in which
the Appellants have filed their appeal of the FERC orders. In
any event, their argument is simply precluded here by the
Fisheries Service's agreement that the scope of any court
of appeals review of the BiOps will be what the APA would