Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
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.
Cascadia Wildlands V. Woodruff, Erick A. Valencia
Cascadia Wildlands V. Woodruff, Erick A. Valencia
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Predator management has long been a source of contention among the general public, and few predators have had a more polarizing effect on the public than wolves. Cascadia Wildlands v. Woodruff is yet another example of the tension between conservationists and private interests. In this case, Wildlands opposed the federal government’s FONSI and EA regarding Wildlife Services’s involvement in assisting the WDFW to implement its Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. The district court determined that Wildlife Services had acted arbitrarily and vacated Wildlife Services’s FONSI and EA.
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 …
Wildearth Guardians V. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Ross Keogh
Wildearth Guardians V. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Ross Keogh
Public Land & Resources Law Review
As part of a comprehensive strategy to keep coal “in the ground,” environmental plaintiffs challenged the BLM’s leasing of federally owned coal tracts in the Powder River Basin in 2010 on climate change grounds. WildEarth Guardians was the first suit to reach a federal circuit court, where the District of Columbia Circuit Court affirmed that the BLM’s environmental analysis of the climate change impacts of the leased coal was adequate under NEPA. Notably, in reversing the district court, the circuit court found that the plaintiffs had procedural standing.