Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Organized Village Of Kake V. United States Department Of Agriculture, Maresa A. Jenson
Organized Village Of Kake V. United States Department Of Agriculture, Maresa A. Jenson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In an en banc rehearing, the Ninth Circuit, in Organized Village of Kake v. United States Department of Agriculture, determined that the Roadless Rule should apply to the largest National Forest, the Alaskan Tongass. The significant socioeconomic impacts on Southeast Alaska contrasted with important environmental roadless values make the management of the Tongass National Forest unique and controversial. The Ninth Circuit concluded that Alaska, an intervener, had standing to appeal and that the 2003 Tongass Exception to the Roadless Rule was arbitrary and capricious.
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Sierra Club V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Despite the majority’s “needlessly circuitous” route, as described by concurring Judge Brown, Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stands as a limit of the application of NEPA to a private pipeline constructed largely on private land. While the main issue identified by the District of Columbia Circuit Court was the scope of environmental review required under NEPA, the court also addressed issues dealing with the ESA and the CWA relating to the construction and operation of a pipeline in the Midwest. The court held that under these circumstances, NEPA review was mandated only for those small stretches where …
Cascadia Wildlands V. Bureau Of Indian Affairs, Hannah R. Seifert
Cascadia Wildlands V. Bureau Of Indian Affairs, Hannah R. Seifert
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs exemplifies the discretion agencies enjoy when determining how to organize and present information in environmental assessments. In a case of first impression, the court relaxed the extent of analysis necessary to comply with NEPA by allowing reasonably foreseeable future projects to be aggregated with past projects. Additionally, the court permitted the BIA to circumvent the FWS’s Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl by holding that the CRA was subject only to the standards and guidelines of federal forest plans, not specific recovery plans.
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center V. United States Forest Service, Maresa A. Jenson
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center V. United States Forest Service, Maresa A. Jenson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Overturning thirty-year-old precedent, Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service held that merely proving a procedural violation of the ESA is no longer enough to show irreparable injury in support of injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Cottonwood, concluding the Forest Service violated the ESA by not reinitiating consultation, but declined to provide injunctive relief because Cottonwood failed to show irreparable injury to the Canadian lynx.
Western Watersheds Project V. Jewell, Hannah S. Cail
Western Watersheds Project V. Jewell, Hannah S. Cail
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Idaho District Court granted WWP’s motion for summary judgment and denied those of the BLM and intervener Cattle Associations. WWP alleged the BLM failed to protect sage grouse in some 600 grazing permit decisions issued by the Burley Field Office. The court found the decisions insufficient under NEPA because the BLM did not consider the cumulative impacts of grazing permit renewals on sage grouse.
Wildearth Guardians V. United States Office Of Surface Mining, Reclamation And Enforcement, Erick A. Valencia
Wildearth Guardians V. United States Office Of Surface Mining, Reclamation And Enforcement, Erick A. Valencia
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Colorado District Court in WildEarth Guardians v. United States Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement ordered the United States Office of Surface Mining to reevaluate the environmental impact of an approved mining modification plan for the Colowyo Mine after the Office failed to involve the public in the approval process and did not take a “hard look” at the modification’s effects on the environment as required by NEPA. Even though the Office of Surface Mining also approved the Trapper Mine’s modification plan without fulfilling NEPA’s requirements, WildEarth Guardians was left without a remedy regarding that mine because the …
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service concerns the United States Forest Service’s and the Bureau of Land Management’s authorizations of on-the-ground mining exploration activities in the Sunset Roadless Area of western Colorado. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s holding has far-reaching consequences for federal agencies’ analysis and disclosure of impacts on the climate under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). In addition to bolstering the Plaintiffs’ recent successes at establishing legal standing to challenge federal agencies’ disclosures and analyses of impacts on the climate under NEPA, High Country is the first case to …