site, then the Service will issue a “no effect” letter, and the mitigation requirements will be lifted. Although Mead did hire a consultant to determine the distance of his property from salamander breeding pools, he has not submitted a properly performed survey to the Service, and the Service has thus declined to issue a “no effect” letter. Mead does not argue that the cost of performing a proper survey would amount to a taking. Because Mead has not received a final determination from the Service as to whether the salamander mitigation requirements apply to his development project, he has not met the first prong of the Williamson County test, and his takings claim is therefore not ripe. Cf Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 739, 117 S.Ct. 1659, 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Second, Mead contests the application of the
holding a takings claim ripe where the relevant agency had finally determined that the petitioners land lay entirely within an environmentally sensitive area in which development was not allowed holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land holding that a claim for indemnification was not ripe where it arose under common law and distinguishing this holding from ac  s in which the claim arose under contract and was thus ripe holding that a plaintiffs takings claim was not ripe for review where the state court never explicitly reached the merits of their claim and no procedural bar existed to prevent review holding in land use situations courts have concluded in order for a regulatory takings claim to be ripe there must be a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue