Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs

<> Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs - 9/11/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No.  14-35553. Environmental groups challenge the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) approval of the a timber sale in the Coquille Forest in southwest Oregon. The groups argue that BIA did not adequately consider the cumulative environmental impact under NEPA and that the project is inconsistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl.      The district court granted summary judgment to the BIA and the Tribe on both claims. The Appeals Court affirmed.

United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp.

<> United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. - 9/4/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 14-40128. The Appeals Court said, "CITGO urges this court to reverse the Clean Air Act convictions because the district court erroneously instructed the jury about the scope of a regulation concerning "oil-water separators." CITGO also contends that the MBTA convictions are infirm because the district court misinterpreted the centuryUnited States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 4, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40128 Document: 00513186668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 No. 14-40128 2 old statute as covering unintentional bird kills. We essentially agree with both contentions and reverse."  Fifth Circuit Spurns Second and Tenth Circuits, Sides with Eighth and Ninth Circuits on Interpretation of MBTA "Take" Prohibition - Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), it is unlawful to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill . . . any migratory bird" protected by the Act.  16 U.S.C. 703(a) & 704(a) -- a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that although the MBTA imposes a strict liability standard for any of the aforementioned acts, in order for an unlawful "taking" to occur the defendant must have taken a "deliberate act done directly and intentionally to migratory birds."

Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. EPA

<> Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. EPA - 9/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-72346. Petitioners are commercial bee keepers and bee keeping organizations, and they challenge the EPA's approval of insecticides containing sulfoxaflor, which initial studies showed were highly toxic to bees.      The Panel ruled: "In this case, given the precariousness of bee populations, leaving the EPA's registration of sulfoxaflor in place risks more potential environmental harm than vacating it. Moreover, on remand, a different result may be reached. Once the EPA obtains adequate Tier 2 studies, it may conclude that a lower maximum application rate of sulfoxaflor is warranted, or that sulfoxaflor cannot be registered at all because of its effects on brood development and long-term colony strength. We therefore vacate the EPA's unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor and remand for the EPA to obtain further studies and data regarding the effects of sulfoxaflor on bees, as required by EPA regulations. Vacated and Remanded."

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Tenn. Dep't of Revenue

<> CSX Transp., Inc. v. Tenn. Dep't of Revenue - 8/28/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 14-6286, 6285, 6287 &6288. These appeals concern the district court's denial of preliminary-injunctive relief to the Plaintiffs-Appellants, five railroad companies (the "Railroads") who individually brought suit against the Tennessee Department of Revenue and Richard Roberts, Commissioner of Revenue (collectively, the "Defendants" or the "State"), in response to the recently enacted Tennessee Transportation Fuel Equity Act (the "Act").       The Railroads contend the Act violates the federal Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (the "4-R Act"), which prohibits states from imposing taxes that "discriminat[e] against a rail carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4).       The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision in part and remanded in part.

Matthew Dueling, et al v. Devon Energy Corporation

<> Matthew Dueling, et al v. Devon Energy Corporation - 8/14/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 14-11177.  Unpublished Opinion. Plaintiffs asserted that Devon Energy's oil and gas drilling site, across the street from their homes in a residential area, is noisy and disruptive, and interferes with their use and enjoyment of their properties. The district court granted Devon Energy's motion for judgment on the pleadings—finding Plaintiffs' nuisance claims time-barred—and denied Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend.       The Appeals Court ruled, "Because the district court denied leave to amend based on mere delay in the absence of a possibility of serious prejudice to the defendant, we vacate the judgment and remand."

ONRC Action v. US Bureau of Reclamation

<> ONRC Action v. US Bureau of Reclamation - 8/21/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-35831. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Bureau of Reclamation and other defendants in a citizen suit brought by an environmental group under the Clean Water Act, alleging defendants violated the Act by discharging pollutants from the Klamath Straits Drain into the Klamath River without a permit.

Summer Break

Subscribers & Readers Note: WIMS will be on summer break for the next two weeks. We will resume publication on August 31, 2015.   During the break you can stay on top of many news events and issues with our WIMS Environmental News Blogs which are continuously, automatically updated with the latest news and information from various WIMS sources.   White House News   Congressional News   Federal Agencies News   Industry News   Enviro Group News   Air Quality News   Hazardous Waste News   Transportation News