Comprehensive Rulemaking Petition Filed Urging FWS to Regulate Wind Energy Impacts on Migratory Birds

On behalf of American Bird Conservancy, today we filed a detailed rulemaking petition with the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). The petition requests FWS to promulgate regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) establishing a comprehensive permitting system for wind power projects that is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds. The petition describes the need for such a system and the legal framework under which FWS has more than sufficient authority to promulgate such regulations. Further, the petition examines in detail the several benefits of the proposed permitting system and also offers specific regulatory language that would accomplish the objectives identified in this petition. The proposed regulations seek to protect migratory birds at risk from wind energy projects, and at the same time provide the industry with the legal certainty that wind developers in compliance with a permit would not be subject to penalties for violation of the MBTA.

More information on the petition is available here: http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_farms.html

Lawsuit Filed To Protect Captive Orcas

On November 17, 2011, we filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in the state of Washington on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and several individuals challenging a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service to exclude the captive members of killer whales (orcas) from the population that has been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The listing decision, which was issued over five years ago, inexplicably excluded the captive members of the species, including an orca named Lolita, who was captured from the wild in the 1970s and is maintained at the for-profit Seaquarium in Miami where she is kept in a small tank with no companions of her own species. Because she was excluded from the listing decision, the Seaquarium, which over the years has made tens of millions of dollars from having Lolita perform tricks on command, can continue to keep in her in conditions that “harm” and “harass” her, with impunity under the ESA.

Formal Notice Of ESA Violations Sent To U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Over Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm

We submitted a detailed notice letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the agency’s September 27, 2011 Biological Opinion that purports to authorize construction and operation of the Shaffer Mountain Wind Project, which is proposed to be located in Somerset and Bedford Counties, Pennsylvania. The proposed project site presents one of the gravest risks to an endangered species of any operating or proposed wind energy facility in the country, with a biologically critical maternity colony of the highly endangered Indiana bat located on the project site. Leading bat biologists have strongly urged the Service to consider alternative sites with less risk to bats, especially in light of the devastating impacts of a disease known as White Nose Syndrome that is ravaging Indiana bat populations and sending the species spiraling towards extinction, but the Service disregarded that expert advice and instead allowed lethal turbine operation subject to certain parameters. The Service’s approach was legally and scientifically baseless, as explained in our notice letter that can be found here.

Lawsuit Filed To Protect Big Cypress National Preserve From Invasive ORV Use

Today, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of a coalition of national and local environmental organizations (Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Florida Biodiversity Project, South Florida Wildlands Association, and Wilderness Watch) seeking to overturn the National Park Service’s (“NPS”) decision to introduce extenstive Off-Road Vehicle (“ORV”) use and ORV-assisted hunting into the pristine Addition Lands of the Big Cypress National Preserve. The Addition Lands have for decades served as a place of solitude for hikers, nature photographers, and birdwatchers, whose experiences will be severely diminished by the hundreds of miles of ORV trails authorized by NPS’s decision. Not only did NPS for the first time authorize these environmentally destructive motorized uses in the Addition Lands, but they achieved that result by improperly excluding beautiful and pristine lands from a wilderness eligibility study, which allowed NPS to bypass recommending those areas to Congress for long-term preservation as wilderness for the public’s enjoyment of these lands in their natural state. The lawsuit also raises concerns with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion, which failed to address several key threats to the highly imperiled Florida panther, as well as other species. Here is a link to the press release, and here is a link to the complaint.

Intervention Granted For Wild Horse Advocacy Groups In Lawsuit Brought By Grazing Association To Remove Wild Horses From Public Lands in Wyoming

The federal district court in Wyoming today granted the firm’s motion to intervene on behalf of several wild horse advocacy groups in a case brought by the Rock Springs Grazing Association to force the Bureau of Land Management to remove wild horses from over a million acres of public lands in Wyoming.  The Grazing Association represented to the Court that BLM told it to file the case if it wanted to get Congress to provide more funds to BLM for the removal of wild horses, which compete with domestic livestock for food on the range.  The firm is representing the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, the International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros, and the Cloud Foundation.

Court Upholds Ban On Polar Bear “Trophy” Imports

Today, in the long-running litigation over protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the federal district court rejected four lawsuits by sport-hunting groups challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service’s prohibition on importing the body parts of polar bears killed in  Canadian “sport hunts.”   In these lawsuits the plaintiffs acknowledge that the polar bear requires ESA protection because the species’ sea-ice habitat is being destroyed by global climate change.  Nonetheless, the hunters argued that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), pursuant to which certain of these imports had been permitted prior to the species’ ESA listing, trumps these threats, and that imports must continue to be allowed.

Rejecting these arguments, the district court ruled that, by virtue of the ESA listing, the polar bear became a “depleted” species under the MMPA, and consequently neither the MMPA nor the ESA allow these imports to continue.  The Court also ruled that the import ban applies to any polar bear body part in Canada when the species was listed, and thus that individuals who had killed polar bears in Canada prior to the listing, but had not yet completed the import process, are also subject to the ban.  The decision is available here. 

Summary Judgment Brief Filed Over FOIA Fees

On behalf of the nation's oldest and most prominent auto safety organization - the Center for Auto Safety - we recently filed for summary judgment in a suit challenging the Treasury Department's decision to demand exorbitant fees before it would produce emails under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Center, the driving force behind the widespread adoption of lemon laws and major recalls of defective cars, seeks government email correspondence that would shed light on the government-led, taxpayer-financed restructuring of the two automotive giants, Chrysler and GM, which left personal injury victims without any recourse for injuries resulting from defective automobiles against the "New Chrysler" and "New GM." Rather than simply providing the Center with a disc containing the electronic documents or granting the Center a "public interest" waiver of duplication fees as provided by FOIA, the government denied access to the Center by assessing photocopying fees in excess of $33,000 for paper copies of the records. Our brief argues that because the government's position creates an unlawful barrier to access under FOIA, the court should order the government to provide all of the responsive documents to the Center without charge.