Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose out of a dispute between the government and the county concerning the clean up of an abandoned landfill. The government entered into a consent decree with the county and the county then moved to modify the decree. The district court suspended the decree pending further findings and the government appealed. The county later moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the order was not appealable because it was nonfinal. Because the government failed to satisfy the Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc. factors, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction at this time and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. El Dorado County, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service's decision adopting the modified Idaho Roadless Rule. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and adopted the district court's comprehensive judgment in Appeal No. 11-35269. The district court found that the Forest Service did not violate the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., in preparing the Biological Opinion and that the Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., in relying on the Biological Opinion or in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving the Rule. Consequently, cross appeals were dismissed as moot. View "Jayne, et al v. Sherman, et al" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) properly upheld two air permits authorizing exploratory drilling operations in the Arctic Ocean by a drillship and its associated fleet of support vessels. The petition for review challenged two aspects of the permits: (1) the determination that supported vessels, unlike the drillship itself, did not require the best available control technology (BACT) to control emissions; and (2) the exemption of the area within a 500-meter radius of the drillship from ambient air quality standards. The court denied the petition, holding that the EPA's interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 7627 was reasonable and that the EPA's grant of a 500 meter ambient air exemption was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the agency's regulations. View "REDOIL, et al v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the FWS's Biological Opinion regarding the Ruby Pipeline Project, which involved the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from Wyoming to Oregon. The court set aside the Opinion as arbitrary and capricious and set aside the Record of Decisions because it relied on the invalid Opinion. The court remanded for the agency to formulate a revised Opinion that: (1) addresses the impacts, if any, of Ruby's groundwater withdrawal on listed fish species and critical habitat; and (2) categorizes and treats the Conservation Action Plan measures as "interrelated actions" or excludes any reliance on their beneficial effects in making a revised jeopardy and adverse modification. View "Center for Biological Diversity. v. BLM, et al" on Justia Law

These consolidated petitions for review challenged a contract between the BPA and one of its long-time customers, Alcoa. BPA's preference customers and others filed this petition for review, requesting that the court hold that the contract was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the agency's statutory mandate to act in accordance with sound business principles. Petitioners claimed, among other things, that instead of entering into a contract to sell power to Alcoa at the statutorily required Industrial Firm power (IP) rate, BPA should sell to other buyers at the market rate. The court denied the petitions for review insofar as they pertained to the Initial Period. Because the potential for BPA and Alcoa to enter into the Second Period of the contract was no longer before the court, the court dismissed those portions of the petitions. Finally, the court held that because BPA relied on a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, requirements, declining to complete an Environmental Impact Statement was not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's NEPA claim. View "Alcoa Inc. v. BPA, et al" on Justia Law

WWP originally filed this action in 2004 challenging the BLM's renewal of grazing permits in the Jarbidge Resource Area (JRA), covering a large expanse of Southern Idaho. At issue on appeal, was whether the district court erred in denying WWP fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees where the district court considered the reasonableness of the underlying agency decision to issue grazing authorization after the fire at issue, and the reasonableness of the litigation strategy defending that decision View "Western Watersheds Project v. Ellis, et al" on Justia Law

The Forest Service limited the use of motor vehicles to certain roads in the century-old Eldorado National Forest (ENF). Concerned about the impact of the limitation on their activities, a group of miners and prospectors challenged the Forest Service's decision. The court held that the miners had standing to bring this suit. Still, the Forest Service acted within its authority when it prohibited cross country vehicle traffic and limited motor vehicle use to certain designated roads in the ENF. The "public roads" provision in 36 C.F.R. 228.4(a)(1) did not create an exception to the 2008 Decision because the roads on which motor vehicles were prohibited ceased to be "public roads," as reasonably defined by the Forest Service. View "Public Lands For The People, Inc., et al v. AGRI, et al" on Justia Law

Kivalina appealed the district court's dismissal of their action for damages against Energy Producers. Kivalina alleged that massive greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the Energy Producers have resulted in global warming, which, in turn, has severely eroded the land where the City of Kivalina sits and threatens it with imminent destruction. Kivalina sought damages under a federal common law claim of public nuisance. At issue was whether the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the EPA action that the Act authorized, displaced Kivalina's claims. The court concluded that the Supreme Court has held that federal common law addressing domestic greenhouse gas emissions has been displaced by Congressional action. That determination displaced federal common law public nuisance actions seeking damages, as well as those actions seeking injunctive relief. The civil conspiracy claim fell within the substantive claim. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Native Village of Kivalina, et al v. Exxonmobile Corp., et al" on Justia Law

This case arose out of Native Ecosystems Council's appeal of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service in an action regarding the Ettien Ridge Fuels Reduction Project in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Native Ecosystems Council alleged that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1600-14, when it issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice approving the Project. The court held that the Forest Service took the requisite "hard look" at the environmental impact of the Project on the elk hiding cover, and goshawk populations, in the manner required by NEPA. The court further held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Forest Service on the NFMA claims because it reasonably considered the "relevant factors" that could have impacted the elk hiding cover and goshawk populations in its analysis of the Project. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Native Ecosystems Council, et al v. Weldon, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal related to the Forest Service's design of the Angora Project in response to damage caused by the Angora Fire. The court held that the Lake Tahoe Forest Plan did not require the Forest Service to demonstrate at the project level that the Angora Project would maintain viable population levels of management indicator species, including the black-backed woodpecker. Therefore, the Forest Service's analysis of the Angora Project's impact on the black-backed woodpecker's habitat was not arbitrary and capricious under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq. Here, because the Forest Service did not fail to (1) ensure the scientific integrity of the final environmental assessment (EA), (2) properly responded to dissenting scientific opinion, (3) properly considered proposed alternatives to the Angora Project EA, and (4) took the requisite "hard look" at the impacts of the Angora Project, the court also concluded that the Forest Service's analysis of the Angora Project's environmental effect was not arbitrary and capricious under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court. View "Earth Island Institute, et al v. USFS, et al" on Justia Law