Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
350 Montana V. Bernhardt, Ryan W. Frank
350 Montana V. Bernhardt, Ryan W. Frank
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In its second trip before the District Court of Montana, the Bull Mountain Mine expansion was again halted, this time due to coal train derailments. The Bull Mountain Mine expansion, previously enjoined in 2015 for violating the National Environmental Policy Act, was revived in 2018 when the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement approved the expansion a second time. Here, the court found the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act on grounds that the Environmental Assessment failed to properly analyze the risk of train derailments.
National Wildlife Federation V. Secretary Of The United States Department Of Transportation, Holly A. Seymour
National Wildlife Federation V. Secretary Of The United States Department Of Transportation, Holly A. Seymour
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation in considering whether the district court erred in holding that an agency took a discretionary action when it approved oil spill response plans to a pipeline under the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. It held the Department of Transportation does not need to consider the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act requirements in their response plans as long as the Clean Water Act criteria for such plans are met.
Public-Private Conservation Agreements And The Greater Sage-Grouse, Justin R. Pidot
Public-Private Conservation Agreements And The Greater Sage-Grouse, Justin R. Pidot
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 2015, the Obama Administration announced its conservation plans for the greater sage-grouse, an iconic bird of the intermountain west.Political leadership at the time described those plans as the “largest landscape-level conservation effort in U.S. history,”and they served as the foundation for a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) that a listing of the bird was not warranted under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The Trump Administration appears poised to substantially amend the plans, although an array of interested parties have urged that the plans be left intact. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, conservation of …
Center For Biological Diversity V. Zinke, Ryan Hickey
Center For Biological Diversity V. Zinke, Ryan Hickey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The oft-cited “arbitrary and capricious” standard revived the Center for Biological Diversity’s most recent legal challenge in its decades-long quest to see arctic grayling listed under the Endangered Species Act. While this Ninth Circuit decision did not grant grayling ESA protections, it did require the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider its 2014 finding that listing grayling as threatened or endangered was unwarranted. In doing so, the court found “range,” as used in the ESA, vague while endorsing the FWS’s 2014 clarification of that term. Finally, this holding identified specific shortcomings of the challenged FWS finding, highlighting how …
Friends Of Animals V. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Bradley E. Tinker
Friends Of Animals V. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Bradley E. Tinker
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Friends of Animals v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit held that the plain language of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allows for the removal of one species of bird to benefit another species. Friends of Animals argued that the Service’s experiment permitting the taking of one species––the barred owl––to advance the conservation of a different species––the northern spotted owl––violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The court, however, found that the Act delegates broad implementing discretion to the Secretary of the Interior, and neither the Act nor the underlying international conventions limit the taking of …
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In California Sea Urchin Commission v. Bean, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to end an experimental sea otter colony and translocation program. Commercial fishing groups sought reversal of the decision due to their interest in maintaining the translocation program which reduced otter predation on commercially valuable shellfish. While the Ninth Circuit held the group had standing, it then applied the Chevron test and determined the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Markle Interest, L.L.C. V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Peter B. Taylor
Markle Interest, L.L.C. V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
This action is an appeal of a grant of summary judgment to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on the designation of critical-habitat for the dusky gopher frog under the ESA. Landowner appellants originally sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Service, the Department of Interior, and agency officials challenging the designation of their private property as critical-habitat for the dusky gopher frog. The court’s holdings recognize loss of property value as a “particularized injury” for standing under the ESA in addition to addressing the landowners’ three principal arguments: 1) the critical habitat designation violated the ESA and the …
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
Save Our Cabinets V. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jaclyn Van Natta
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
Defenders Of Wildlife V. Zinke, Jacob R. Schwaller
Defenders Of Wildlife V. Zinke, Jacob R. Schwaller
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Wyoming was the final holdout of protections for wolves under the Endangered Species Act, and a recent decision by the United States Circuit for the District of Columbia has finally overturned those protections. After years of court battles, this decision marks the final adjudication removing federal protections, and places the management of the wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area back in the hands of the states surrounding Yellowstone National Park. Complete deference to state regulatory systems may be a new trend in the adjudication of cases under the ESA, and this case could have significant impacts on future deference given …
Alliance For The Wild Rockies And Native Ecosystems Council V. Krueger, Nicholas R. Vandenbos
Alliance For The Wild Rockies And Native Ecosystems Council V. Krueger, Nicholas R. Vandenbos
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Environmental plaintiffs demanded injunctions following U.S. Forest Service approval of two fuel reduction projects in the Gallatin National Forest, alleging, inter alia, ESA and NEPA violations. Although both projects had already been challenged in Salix v. United States Forest Serv., Plaintiffs in Alliance for the Wild Rockies alleged specific harms, allowing the court to create a new injunction standard for cases involving procedural, programmatic violation of the ESA. The new test harmonizes two conflicting lines of Ninth Circuit precedent.
Alaska Wilderness League V. U.S. Epa, Maxwell Kirchhoff
Alaska Wilderness League V. U.S. Epa, Maxwell Kirchhoff
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In this case, the Ninth Circuit deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of a statute concerning whether increment requirements were applicable to a temporary source pollutant. The court held that Shell Offshore, Inc. was not required to analyze the potential impact of an offshore drill barge, the Kulluk, under the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ challenge concerning the Kulluk's impact on ambient air was defeated pursuant to Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, REDOIL v. EPA.