News Home

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


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

News Watch Home

Court Holds that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is Not Obligated to Ensure Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Compliance When Granting Right-of-Way to Industrial-Scale Wind Farm  

Credit:  4/19/2016 | by Brooke Wahlberg | Nossaman LLP | www.jdsupra.com ~~

On March 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) in a lawsuit involving the grant of a lease to Tule Wind, LLC for construction of the second phase of an industrial-scale wind energy facility. The Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Black, Case No. 14-cv-2261 (S.D. Cal. March 29, 2016). Plaintiffs alleged that BIA’s approval of the project (1) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”); (2) violated the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (“BGEPA”); and (3) violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”).

With respect to the BGEPA and MBTA claims, Plaintiffs alleged that by approving the Record of Decision granting the lease to Tule Wind, BIA permitted Tule Wind to violate these two laws given the wind energy facility’s proximity to eagle nests in the region. The court disagreed with Plaintiffs allegations finding (1) the BIA lease does not authorize the killing of eagles or other migratory birds; (2) BGEPA and MBTA are reactive laws and do not require an agency permitting a third party’s otherwise lawful activity to condition approval on obtaining authorization under either law; (3) BIA does not administer or enforce either the MBTA or BGEPA; and (4) individuals are responsible for their own compliance under BGEPA and that an agency need only obtain a BGEPA permit if the take of eagles are likely to result from agency actions implemented by the agency. With respect to the NEPA claim, plaintiffs alleged that BIA was required to prepare a supplemental NEPA analysis. The court disagreed, finding that the approval of the lease was the major federal action and BIA had no further remaining major federal actions requiring supplemental NEPA.

Source:  4/19/2016 | by Brooke Wahlberg | Nossaman LLP | www.jdsupra.com

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 via e-mail.

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


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.