AOGA Educational Seminar - Alaska Oil and Gas … · AOGA Educational Seminar _____ Endangered...

1

AOGA Educational Seminar

_____________________________

Endangered Species Act

Permitting Legal Challenges

Trends

Jeff Leppo

Stoel Rives LLP

December 11, 2012

Anchorage, AK

jwleppo@stoel.com

2

ESA Overview

"My lawyer finally got me on the endangered-species list!"

3

The ESA Basics

The ESA authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to conserve fish, wildlife and plants facing extinction by:

(1) listing species as threatened or endangered

(2) designating critical habitat

(3) enforcing the prohibition on take of listed species

(4) Consulting to ensure that actions funded or authorized by federal agencies do not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat

4

The ESA Basics

• Procedural and substantive requirements

• Implemented by U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Services (FWS) and the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the “Services”)

5

ESA Listing

Identifying species for possible designation as endangered or threatened

• A citizen may petition the FWS or NMFS

• The Services may identify species through internal

studies and discussions

• Subpopulations may be listed as a Distinct

Population Segment (DPS) if both discreet and

significant

6

Key Definition –

Endangered Species

• Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range

Bowhead whale

(Balaena mysticetus)

7

Key Definition –

Threatened Species

• Any species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future

Spectacled Eider

(Somateria fischeri)

8

ESA Listing Criteria

1. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of species range or habitat

2. Over-use for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes

3. Disease or predation

4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

5. Other natural or man-made factors affecting continued existence of species

9

ESA Listing Steps

• Petition

• 90-day finding on Petition

• Species status review 12-month finding

• Proposed listing

• Final listing

• Designation of critical habitat

• Recovery plan

10

ESA Listings - Alaska

• 8 marine mammals – Polar bear – Northern sea otter (DPS) – Steller sea lion (2 DPSs) – Bowhead whale – Fin whale – Humpback whale – Cook Inlet beluga whale (DPS)

• 4 birds – Short-tailed albatross – Spectacled eider – Steller’s eider (DPS) – Eskimo curlew (extirpated)

• 1 terrestrial mammal – Canadian Lynx

• 1 plant – Aleutian shield fern

• Others (uncommon) – Leatherback sea turtle – Blue whale – North Pacific right whale – Sei whale – Loggerhead sea turtle – Green sea turtle – Sperm whale

• 3 candidate species – Pacific walrus – Kittlitz’s murrelet – Yellow-billed loon

• 2 proposed species

– Ringed seal

– Bearded seal

• 1 species being reconsidered – Ringed seal

11

12

Key Definition - Take

• Includes harassing, harming, injuring or killing listed species

• Harm includes significant habitat alteration which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns

13

Take of Listed Species

Is Prohibited

• ESA take prohibitions immediately apply when species are listed as endangered

• ESA take prohibitions do not automatically apply to “threatened” species

• FWS has adopted a general 4(d) rule applying take prohibitions subject to species specific limitations

• NMFS adopts species specific 4(d) regulations that apply or limit application of the take prohibition

14

Prerequisite to ESA

Take Authority

• Take authority under the ESA for listed

marine mammals cannot be obtained

without an MMPA take (negligible impact)

authorization

15

Takings Exceptions

• Alaska Natives

– for subsistence purposes

• Self Defense

– actions to protect yourself or any human from bodily harm

16

Critical Habitat

• Use best scientific data to identify areas essential to conservation of species, and that may require special management

• Economic impact analysis required; areas may be excluded from protection based upon that analysis and consideration of other relevant factors if benefits of exclusion outweigh benefits of designation

• Notice and public comment

• Designation does not create a park or preserve, but does complicate activities within the habitat area

17

Key Definition – Critical Habitat

• Specific geographic areas with physical

and biological features essential to the

conservation of a listed species and

that may require special management

18

Polar Bear Critical Habitat

• Dec. 7, 2010 (75 FR 76086)

• 187,000 square miles – Sea ice habitat

– Terrestrial denning habitat

– Barrier Island habitat

• Service admits no conservation benefit

– ESA and MMPA adequately protective

– FWS will not use to regulate GHG emissions

• Service recognized O&G activities are not a threat

19

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale

Critical Habitat (proposed)

• Nearshore foraging and calving (Area 1)

• Near and offshore feeding and transit (Area 2)

• Economic analysis estimates under $600K in impacts

• Underestimates costs, delays, regional impact

19

20

Potential Bearded & Ringed Seal Habitat

21

Future Walrus Critical Habitat?

22

Section 7 Consultation

• Purpose is to ensure that actions authorized, funded or carried out by federal agencies are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

23

Key Definition – Jeopardy

• Jeopardizing the continued existence of a species means – to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species

24

Section 7 Consultation

• If agency action may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the agency must initiate consultation with the Services

• Private entities are affected by Section 7 when their activities require federal permits or authorizations, or federal funding

25

Informal Consultation Summary

Federal Action

No Effect = no consultation “May Affect” Listed Species

Develop biological assessment

Not likely to adversely affect

End of Informal Consultation Go to Formal Consultation

Biological Opinion and

Incidental Take Statement

Likely to adversely affect

26

Formal Consultation

• Biological opinion evaluating the action

• Two possible outcomes:

1. No jeopardy opinion – federal action not likely to jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat

– Issuance of incidental take statement

– Imposition of reasonable and prudent measures to minimize take

27

Formal Consultation

2. Jeopardy Opinion – federal action likely to jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat

– Identifies reasonable and prudent alternatives that avoid jeopardy or adverse modifications

28

Endangered Species Act Trends

• Climate change-based listings, and related critical habitat designations, for currently abundant arctic species, pose new resource use challenges

• The ESA regulatory process, particularly as interrelated with NEPA and MMPA regulatory process, poses important schedule discipline and substantive legal challenges

• Change and uncertainty, conflicting and competing priorities, and new listings and critical habitat designations will continue to be confounding factors

29

Resource Development

Permitting Challenges – 2013

• eNGO initiatives will continue to proliferate and to complicate Alaska resource development, but their strategies will evolve

• Nearly every significant federal permitting decision, including project-specific decisions, are likely to be challenged

• NEPA, ESA, CAA, CWA, MMPA will continue to be primary legal battlegrounds

• Responsible federal officials will not be nimble in anticipating and responding to these circumstances

30

Important Trends

• eNGO challenges and federal decisions are being heavily influenced by the so-called “precautionary principle.”

• Reliable published data and analysis is essential. Actual data will demonstrate that conservatively biased assumptions are not reasonable.

• The State of Alaska can serve a critically important role in advancing science-based decision-making.