[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

Go to multi-category search »


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Bird protections create legal hurdles for Cape Wind  

Credit:  Source: Robin Bravender, E&E reporter | Posted: Friday, February 12, 2016 | via www.governorswindenergycoalition.org ~~

The long-stalled offshore wind project planned for the coastal waters off Massachusetts could face even more legal roadblocks.

Federal appeals court judges signaled skepticism about whether the government had properly determined how to minimize the project’s impact on migratory birds.

The Cape Wind project, intended to be the country’s first offshore wind farm, has been beset by legal and financial problems in recent years.

A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today heard oral arguments in the latest legal challenges over the project’s impact on wildlife and how it will affect navigational safety.

Among the issues still pending is a challenge from Pubic Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and other groups that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to consider the “best scientific and commercial data available” when determining how to minimize the project’s impact on migratory birds.

A lower court judge ruled in 2014 that FWS had improperly relied on the views of Cape Wind and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in determining how to minimize the project’s impact on migratory birds. The service determined that “feathering” the turbines so they do not spin at certain times would reduce bird deaths, but it decided against requiring those measures because BOEM and Cape Wind determined they were not reasonable, as the project would not be financially viable if it had to shut down at those times (E&ENews PM, March 14, 2014).

Later that year, FWS replied by stating it had independently evaluated and rejected the proposed “feathering” technique.

PEER’s attorney, Eric Glitzenstein, today told the court that FWS “totally and utterly” disregarded new information about how to protect migratory species before it issued its determination.

By reopening the record, he said, the agency was compelled to consider the best scientific data available.

Judges on the D.C. Circuit today pressed Justice Department attorney J. David Gunter about why the government hadn’t considered new information.

“You made a new decision,” Judge Patricia Millett, a Democratic appointee, told Gunter. She said it seems “crystal clear” that the government had made a new decision subject to challenge. As a matter of good government, she asked why FWS wouldn’t consider all the information available. “What were you afraid of?”

Judge Robert Wilkins, another Democratic appointee on the panel, told the DOJ lawyer he has “some tough sledding” to persuade him it wasn’t a new determination by the agency.

Gunter argued that the lower court had issued a “narrow remand” and that FWS had legitimately decided that the feathering measure wasn’t reasonable. He also noted that the technique had the potential to protect only a very small number of birds.

Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a Republican appointee, said that because they are protected under the Endangered Species Act, there would by nature be a very small number of birds in question.

A decision in the case, PEER v. Abigail Ross Hopper, is expected within the next year. The judges will weigh in on the ESA challenge as well as other arguments regarding Migratory Bird Treaty Act compliance and navigational safety issues.

Source:  Source: Robin Bravender, E&E reporter | Posted: Friday, February 12, 2016 | via www.governorswindenergycoalition.org

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments to query/wind-watch.org.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


Tag: Wildlife

News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.