Beveridge & Diamond

Endangered Species and Wildlife Protection - Environmental

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), perhaps the most stringent and unyielding of all environmental statutes, frequently has been used as a tool to stop or impede major federal and private projects. It has the power to shape even local land use decisions across the nation. Beveridge & Diamond has had extensive experience with the prohibitions and procedures of the federal ESA and analogous state laws. We work with clients to develop strategies for projects to get them through the ESA process, allowing development to proceed while the species are protected. We have also represented a number of clients in federal court litigation and enforcement actions.

Administered jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the ESA has four main components relevant to our clients: (1) the Section 4 listing process; (2) Section 9’s “take” prohibition; (3) the consultation and attendant incidental take permitting process under Section 7; and (4) the incidental take permitting processes under Section 10.

The listing under Section 4 of a species as threatened or endangered (and its critical habitat designated) triggers Section 9’s “take” prohibition. Consequently, we encourage our clients to become active participants in this process. Greater awareness of the reach of the “take” prohibition also helps clients avoid criminal or civil liability.

Section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations require an action agency to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service (or both, under certain circumstances) to ensure that federal actions (e.g., Department of Transportation construction of a road or Army Corps of Engineers issuance of a wetlands fill permit) are not likely to jeopardize protected species or adversely affect their critical habitat. Although consultation is an obligation of federal agencies, the ESA Section 7 consultation process often affects private parties’ development plans. While formal Section 7 consultation nominally involves discussions between and among federal agencies, under certain circumstances there may be opportunities for private entities to inject themselves into these discussions and share their perspective regarding the federal actions under consideration.

The Section 7 and Section 10 incidental take permitting processes provide that a “take” which is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be permitted in certain circumstances and under certain conditions. Section 7 may be used if the project has a federal nexus; i.e., requires a federal permit or receives federal funds. Under Section 7, the permitting or funding agency must consult with FWS in order to obtain an incidental take permit. Section 10 may be used for private projects without a federal nexus. Under Section 10, the project applicant must prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) prior to obtaining an incidental take permit.

Navigating project approval when federally listed species may be impacted requires a complete understanding of the ESA. Our clients’ projects involve all the major elements of the Act, participating in the listing and/or critical habitat designation process, avoiding liability for an illegal “take,” navigating the incidental take permitting processes and keeping abreast of the various proposed guidance documents. Our attorneys bring practical experience gained from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of the Interior to all issues relating to the ESA.

Our firm’s experience with wildlife and species regulation extends beyond the ESA. Our attorneys also provide legal advice and guidance regarding legal obligations under and impacts of other significant, but perhaps less well-known, federal laws involving wildlife and species regulation, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson-Moss Fisheries Act, and the Lacey Act, among others. 

Representative Matters
Representative Matters

Some examples of our work in this area include:

  • We have successfully challenged the FWS decisions to list species.
  • We assist developer, telecommunications, energy, and other clients in navigating the Section 7 consultation process.
  • We guide various counties as well as private project applicants in the planning and development of regional as well as individual HCPs.
  • For several years (and from its inception), we have represented a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Endangered Species Task Force of multiple companies that work together to meet United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA data requirements.
  • In a matter that also involved potential liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, we represented an international cell tower company in a criminal investigation relating to deaths of two bald eagles that had a nest on a cell tower. 
  • We have advised a major petroleum company with respect to potential ESA and MBTA liability relating to birds landing in uncovered settling ponds.
  • In a matter involving application of both the ESA and MBTA in the international environmental law context, we have prepared comments on behalf of a major pesticide company in opposition to a citizen group’s petition to revoke pesticide import tolerances due to alleged affects on protected birds in foreign countries.
  • We recently prepared comments on behalf of a conservation group in Florida with respect to potential impacts of a planned development on the Florida Panther.
  • We recently advised an energy company regarding negotiations with FWS relating to potential effects of a pipeline project on Indiana bats.
  • We assisted a major mining company negotiate with the FWS concerning biological opinions for proposed land exchanges in Arizona.
  • We have counseled a major housing developer on Section 7 issues affecting a planned mixed-use project in Delaware.
  • We represented a developer with respect to construction of a proposed shopping center that involved preservation of habitat for the endangered Karner blue butterfly.  The shopping center was built, the habitat was preserved, and a flyway for the butterfly was created.