December 15, 2019

December 13, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 12, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ohio Wind Developer and FWS Successfully Defend Incidental Take Permit for Endangered Indiana Bat

A proposed Ohio wind farm cleared another legal hurdle last week when Judge Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (“FWS”) issuance of an incidental take permit authorizing the “take” of endangered Indiana bats. The court dismissed plaintiff’s Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and National Environmental Policy Act claims with prejudice, foreclosing re-litigation of the issue and bringing an added level of certainty to a project that has been in development since 2006.

In Union Neighbors United , Inc. v. Jewell, 1:13-cv-01435, a community group opposed to the 52-turbine, 130-megawatt Buckeye wind proposal challenged the FWS’ issuance of an incidental take permit, which would allow the project to “take” up to 130 endangered Indiana bats over the life of the project – or approximately 5.2 bats per year for 25 years. The Indiana bat has been endangered since 1967 due to population declines and loss of winter habitat, and is now at additional risk due to “white nose syndrome," a naturally-occurring fungal affliction currently decimating bat populations throughout the region. Although the proposed Buckeye wind project is not located in an area where Indiana bats live, the bats travel through the project area at certain times of year and may collide with the project’s turbines.

In the instant case, Union Neighbors United alleged that the FWS improperly applied the ESA by failing to select the project alternative that minimized the take of Indiana bats to the “maximum amount that can be implemented by the applicant” before applying mitigation measures to offset any take that could not be avoided in the project proposal. The court disagreed, finding that nothing in the ESA compelled the FWS to engage in such an inflexible two-step process. Instead, the court pointed to the agency’s Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Handbook, which “permits [the FWS] to place less emphasis on whether a program is the 'maximum that can practically be implemented by the applicant,' if an applicant can first demonstrate that the minimization and mitigation [measures] provide substantial benefits to the species.” The Buckeye wind project’s habitat conservation plan, which is the product of close collaboration between the FWS and the project developer, requires variable turbine cut-in speeds to minimize the potential for bat collisions, robust bat monitoring and reporting, and the acquisition, protection, and improvement of over 200 acres of Indiana bat habitat. The court upheld the agency’s determination that these minimization and mitigation measures 'fully offset' any impact that the project may have on Indiana bats. Accordingly, the court found that "[o]nce the impact was fully mitigated, it was not necessary for [the agency] to determine whether more mitigation was possible, or whether the impact could possibly be minimized further."

Although the proposed Buckeye wind farm faces additional litigation obstacles in Ohio state court, the successful outcome of this case highlights the advantages of working collaboratively with the FWS throughout permit process to develop and establish mitigation measures and best management practices that effectively minimize project impacts on threatened and endangered species.

© 2019 Beveridge & Diamond PC

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

W Parker Moore, Environmental Lawyer, Beveridge & Diamond Law firm
Principal

Parker dedicates his practice to successful project development. He helps clients nationwide from every economic sector navigate issues arising under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and related environmental laws.  He also defends clients against agency enforcement actions and citizen suits, applying his substantive knowledge of natural resources law and project development to craft creative, sound and successful legal strategies. He co-chairs B&D’s...

202-789-6028
John Cossa, Environmental Attorney, Beveridge and Diamond Law Firm
Associate

John Cossa’s practice focuses on issues related to the development of energy and mineral resources on federally-managed lands. He advises clients on matters related to the leasing and development of oil and gas, wind, solar, and mineral resources both onshore and on the Outer Continental Shelf. Mr. Cossa also counsels clients on compliance with applicable operations, environmental, and safety regulations, agency notices and orders.

(202) 789-6093
James M. Auslander, Environmental Law Attorney, Beveridge Diamond Law Firm
Principal

James (Jamie) Auslander’s legal practice focuses on environmental, natural resources, and administrative law and litigation.  Mr. Auslander represents numerous major and small businesses, trade associations, and state agencies in a wide range of regulatory and litigation matters, both national and local in scope.  He serves clients in all phases of a case, including internal compliance, administrative proceedings and negotiations, and litigation when necessary.

Mr. Auslander devotes a significant part of his practice to counseling and litigation...

202-789-6009