The controversy continues over the scope of the take prohibition under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As we noted here, the Solicitor’s Office for the US Department of the Interior (DOI) issued an opinion in late 2017 concluding that the MBTA does not prohibit the incidental take of migratory birds. Although this conclusion was consistent with the holdings of at least two US Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Solicitor’s Opinion came under immediate fire from conservation groups and several former government officials. In May of this year, two environmental groups filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the Opinion. In a court filing earlier this month, the government stated its intention to move to dismiss these suits based on several threshold grounds, such as whether the Opinion is a final agency action subject to judicial review. These lawsuits inject fresh uncertainty into an area of the law that DOI sought to clarify.
Latest Post
More Posts
Services Propose Highly Anticipated Revisions to ESA Regulations on Critical Habitat Designation, Section 7 Consultation, and Protections for Threatened Species
Services Propose Highly Anticipated Revisions to ESA Regulations on Critical Habitat Designation, Section 7 Consultation, and Protections for Threatened Species
Practitioner Insights: Is Agency Guidance the Low-Hanging Fruit for Regulatory Reform?
Ambitious White House Infrastructure Legislation Proposal Would Make Major Changes to Environmental Permitting and Reviews
Should Mitigation Meet a “Net Gain” Standard? USFWS is Reconsidering its Stance
Migratory Bird Compliance and Enforcement – Questions Loom Large Across the Landscape
President Orders Expedited Review of Infrastructure Projects – Bringing Natural Resource Issues to the Forefront
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org