Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs are a collection of primarily non-trawl fishermen's associations and groups whose longtime participation in the fishery may shrink under Amendments 20 and 21 to the PacificCoast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. The Plan was designed to increase economic efficiency through fleet consolidation, reduce environmental impacts, and simplify future decisionmaking. Plaintiffs argued that the Amendments were unlawful under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801-1884, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where the NMFS complied with both the MSA and NEPA provisions at issue. View "Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Assoc., et al v. Locke, et al" on Justia Law

This case involved the Service's regulations under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1371(a), that authorized incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walruses resulting from oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and on the adjacent coast of Alaska. Plaintiffs brought suit challenging the regulations and accompanying environmental review documents under various environmental acts. The court held that the Service permissibly determined that only "relatively small numbers" of polar bears and Pacific walruses would be taken in relation to the size of their larger populations, because the agency separately determined that the anticipated take would have only a "negligible impact" on the mammals' annual rates of recruitment or survival. The "small numbers" determination was consistent with the statute and was not arbitrary and capricious. The court also held that the Service's accompanying Biological Opinion and Environmental Assessment (EA) complied with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. View "Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

Grand Canyon Trust appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rejecting the Trust's claims alleging that Reclamation and FWS violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act in the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as moot in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) several of the Trust's claims were moot; (2) Reclamation did not violate the ESA by not consulting with FWS before issuing each annual operating plan (AOP) for the Dam; and (3) Reclamation did not violate NEPA by not preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for each AOP. View "Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation" on Justia Law

Petitioners, the Native Village of Kilalina IRA Council and other Alaskan groups, appealed the EPA Environmental Appeals Board's (EAB) order denying review of their challenges to a permit authorizing Intervenor Teck Alaska, Inc. to discharge wastewater caused by the operation of Red Dog Mine. The EAB concluded that Kivalina had not satisfied the procedural requirements to obtain review under 40 C.F.R. 124.19(a) because it did not demonstrate why the EPA's responses to comments were clearly erroneous or otherwise warranted review. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that Petitioners did not meet the requirements of section 124.19. View "Native Village of Kivalina IRA Council v. EPA" on Justia Law

This case involved an experimental forest thinning, fuels reduction, and research project (the Project) in the Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon. The Project allowed logging and controlled burning on 2,500 acres of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. The League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project (the League) filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service and Service officials, alleging that the agency's environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The district court granted summary judgment to the Service, relying in part on the fact that the Project involved research in an experimental forest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the EIS was adequately supported by scientific data and took a hard look at the significant impacts of the Project, and therefore, the EIS complied with NEPA. View "League of Wilderness Defenders v. USFS" on Justia Law

Two environmental groups (Petitioners) petitioned for review of a final rulemaking by the EPA that approved a revision to a California state plan to implement national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants. The revision required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to transfer credits to a soon-to-be-completed power plant named Sentinel. Petitioners alleged that the EPA committed procedural errors during the rulemaking process and that the substance of the revised state plan violated the Clean Air Act. Petitioners and the EPA agreed this case should be remanded because the EPA's final rule was invalid, so the only dispute was whether vacatur was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded without vacatur so the construction of the power plant could proceed without delay, as the power supply would otherwise be interrupted and the plant's operation was not authorized to commence without a new and valid EPA rule in place. View "Ca. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the renewal of forty-one water supply contracts by the United States Bureau of Reclamation violated section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and illegally threatened the existence of the delta smelt. The contracts at issue fell into two groups: (1) users who obtained water from the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC contracts), and (2) parties who claimed to hold water rights senior to those held by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation with regard to a Central Valley Project and who previously entered into settlement contracts with the Bureau (settlement contractors). The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the DMC contracts and that Plaintiffs' claims against the settlement contractors failed because the contracts were not discretionary and were thus exempted from section 7(a)(2) compliance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing with regard to the contracts and that section 7(a)(2) of the ESA did not apply to the settlement contracts. View "Natural Res. Defense Council v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant CB&I Constructors, Inc. negligently caused a June 2002 wildfire that burned roughly 18,000 acres of the Angeles National Forest in Southern California. The United States brought a civil action against CB&I to recover damages for harm caused by the fire. The jury found CB&I liable and awarded roughly $7.6 million in fire suppression, emergency mitigation, and resource protection costs, and $28.8 million in intangible environmental damages. CB&I challenged the award for environmental damages. The district court held that the government provided sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the amount of environmental damages, and that the resulting award was not grossly excessive. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under California law, the government was entitled to full compensation for all the harms caused by the fire, including intangible environment harm; and (2) substantial evidence supported the jury's determination of the amount of environmental damages, and the award was not grossly excessive. View "United States v. CB&I Constructors, Inc." on Justia Law

This case was a challenge to the State of Washington's Building Code brought by the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) along with individual builders and contractors. The impetus for this challenge was the State's 2009 requirement that new building construction must meet heightened energy conservation goals. At issue was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act's (EPCA) preemption-exemption provision, which expressly preempts state standards requiring greater efficiency than federal standards but exempts from preemption state building codes promoting energy efficiency, so long as those codes meet statutory conditions. Plaintiffs argued that the Building Code did not satisfy EPCA's conditions for exemption. The district court held that Washington had satisfied EPCA's conditions and therefore was not preempted. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Building Code satisfied the conditions Congress set forth in the EPCA for exemption from federal preemption. View "Bldg. Ind. Ass'n of Wash. v. Wash. State Bldg. Code" on Justia Law

This case arose when defendants contended that they were engaged in bona fide mining activities on National Forest System lands, which justified full-time residency on their respective claim sites. The court held that the Forest Service could regulate residential occupancy of bona fide mining claims within the national forests, and that 36 C.F.R. 261.10(b) was consistent with the mining laws and not unconstitutionally vague. The court further held that in a criminal proceeding predicated on the Forest Service's administrative determination, a defendant could obtain judicial review of the agency action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., so long as defendant complied with the procedural requirements for direct review and the APA's statute of limitations has not expired. Thus, defendant Everist was not entitled to judicial review of the Forest Service's determination that his residency was not reasonably incident to mining, because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the APA. Defendant Backlund, on the other had, did administratively exhaust his claim that the Forest Service's denial of his proposed plan of operations was not in accordance with law. Therefore, Backlund was entitled to judicial review of the agency decision in the context of his criminal prosecution. View "United States v. Backlund; United States v. Everist" on Justia Law