Ohio v. Sierra Club

<> Ohio v. Sierra Club - 3/28/16. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 15-684. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a significant decision of the Sixth Circuit that said, "We find that the [Sierra] Club has standing, and we agree with its claim that 'reasonably available control measures' are a prerequisite to redesignation. Therefore, we vacate EPA's redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati area." Sierra Club v. EPA - 3/18/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 12-3169, 12-3182 & 3420. Ohio v. Sierra Club – more details

Court Leaves Rules in Place that Protect Tongass Rainforest Wildlands from Damaging Logging, Road Construction

<> Court Leaves Rules in Place that Protect Tongass Rainforest Wildlands from Damaging Logging, Road Construction - The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear a last-ditch effort by the State of Alaska to exempt America's largest national forest from a national rule protecting undeveloped, road-free national forest areas from logging and road construction -- the State sought to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that kept the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in effect in the vast Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska -- a federal District Court in Alaska that the Bush administration improperly exempted the Tongass from that landmark conservation measure. Alaska, Petitioner v. Organized Village of Kake, Alaska, et al – Supreme Court docket Organized Village of Kake v. USDA - 3/26/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-35517. U.S. Supreme Court Denies Effort to Overturn Tongass National Forest Protections

Southern Forest Watch, Inc. v. Sally Jewell (Dept. of Interior)

<> Southern Forest Watch, Inc. v. Sally Jewell (Dept. of Interior) - 3/23/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 15-5413. Southern Forest Watch, Inc. and three individual plaintiffs appeal the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and four officials, in this action challenging a new fee at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. SFW argues that the Park Service failed to comply with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), 16 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq., when it imposed the fee. SFW also contends that the district court erred in denying a motion to order discovery outside the administrative record. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision in favor of the Interior Dept.

National Parks Conservation v. EPA

<> National Parks Conservation  v.  EPA - 3/14/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case Nos: 12-2910 & 12-3481. Petitions challenging the EPA's approval of the Minnesota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan denied; the EPA's explanation that the "Transport Rule" is better than source-specific "Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)" had a rational basis and its reliance on the Transport Rule was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; the EPA did not err in approving the reasonable progress goals in Minnesota's Plan as it was acting rationally within its sphere of expertise in approving the goals. There was a separate concurring opinion in the result.

Ark Initiative v. Thomas Tidwell

<> Ark Initiative v. Thomas Tidwell - 3/8/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-5259. At issue in this case is the 2012 Colorado Rule's exclusion from the 4.2 million acres of inventoried roadless land in Colorado of about 8,300 acres of land that the Service also has designated for recreational skiing.       The plaintiffs—environmental organizations and two individuals—challenge the Service's application of the 2012 Colorado Rule to allow development of a proposed egress ski trail on once-roadless land within the Special Use Permit boundary for the Snowmass Ski Resort in Aspen.       The District Court disagreed, concluding that the Service offered ample reasons for its decision to exclude existing designated ski areas from the Colorado roadless inventory, and that the Service's six-year public rulemaking process satisfied all applicable notice requirements. The Appeals Court agreed and affirmed that the Service adequately explained the limited ski-area exclusion and did not violate any applicable notice requirements.

Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.

<> Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. - 3/8/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 14-7065. Sierra Club brought a citizen suit seeking civil penalties against Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Sierra Club asserting that a coal-fired power plant in Muskogee, modified a boiler at the plant without first obtaining an emission-regulating permit as required under the Act.      Because Sierra Club filed its action more than five years after construction began on the plant, the district court dismissed its claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as barred by the statute of limitations. The Panel agreed and affirmed the district court and conclude that Sierra Club's claim for civil penalties is statutorily time-barred and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are precluded because they are based on the same facts as the time-barred claim for civil penalties.

Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.

<> Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc. - 3/4/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 15-35392. The Panel dismissed as moot an appeal from the district court's preliminary injunction against Greenpeace, Inc., concerning protests against oil exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea. The panel held that the appeal was moot because the injunction had expired, and defendants Shell Offshore, Inc., and Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., did not seek to renew it.

Sierra Club de Puerto Rico v. EPA

<> Sierra Club de Puerto Rico v. EPA - 3/4/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1138. The case involves challenges regarding lead contamination in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, where Intervenor-Respondent, Energy Answers Arecibo LLC, seeks to build a waste incinerator. Sierra Club, etc al do not challenge the permits, instead, they seek to vacate a 1980 EPA rule on regulation of the incinerator's lead emissions.      The Panel rules that Petitioners challenge comes too late and they dismiss Sierra Club's petition as time-barred under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).

Citizens for Appropriate Rural v. Anthony Foxx

<> Citizens for Appropriate Rural v. Anthony Foxx - 3/3/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 15-1554. This case involves the extension of Interstate 69 (I-69) in Southern Indiana. The extension, which will connect Evansville and Indianapolis, has evolved over several decades and is scheduled to be completed in the coming years. Plaintiffs filed a complaint on August 1, 2011, raising several challenges to the extension. The district court dismissed part of Plaintiffs' complaint when ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all other counts. The Panel affirmed.

Idaho Wool Growers Association v. Tom Vilsak (USDA)

<> Idaho Wool Growers Association v. Tom Vilsak (USDA) - 3/2/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-35445. Among other things, the panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Forest Service in an action challenging the Forest Service's decision, made in response to concerns regarding disease transmission to immunologically vulnerable bighorn sheep, to close to domestic sheep grazing approximately 70% of allotments on which grazing had been permitted in the Payette National Forest in Idaho.

Supreme Court Rejects State Attorneys General Attack on Life-Saving Mercury Standards

<> Supreme Court Rejects State Attorneys General Attack on Life-Saving Mercury Standards - Today (Mar 3), Chief Justice John Roberts denied an emergency application filed by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette and allied Attorneys General to "stay" the landmark limits on toxic pollution from power plant smokestacks (MATS rule).  Opposition Petition (Mar 2) of environmental groups, states and cities opposed to the stay application Previous WIMS Coverage: What a Supreme Court ruling on mercury standards will tell us

Defenders of Wildlife v. Sally Jewell (Interior Department)

<> Defenders of Wildlife v. Sally Jewell (Interior Department) - 3/1/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-5284. The issue in this appeal concerns when a voluntary state conservation agreement may be considered in deciding whether or not to list a species under the Endangered Species Act. FWS's withdraw its 2010 proposal to list the dunes sagebrush lizard, whose habitat is in New Mexico and Texas and the district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Interior.      The Panel said: "Appellants fail to show the Service did not rationally apply its policy in evaluating the Texas plan inasmuch as the Service's factual conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, we affirm."

Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell (Interior Dept)

<> Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell (Interior Dept) - 2/29/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35619, consolidated with 13-35662, 13-35666, 13-35667, 13-35669. In 2009, FWS proposed to designate an area of Alaska's coast and waters as critical habitat for the polar bear. The proposal drew fire from oil and gas trade associations, several Alaska Native corporations and villages, and the State of Alaska claiming the habitat designation was unjustifiably large, and FWS had failed to follow ESA procedure.      The panel reversed the district court's judgment vacating the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ("FWS") designation of critical habitat in Alaska for the polar bear, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act; affirmed the district court's denial of cross-appeal claims; and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of FWS.

Certiorari denied in American Farm Bureau v. EPA

 

<> Certiorari denied in American Farm Bureau v. EPA - American Farm Bureau v. EPA (SupCt docket 15-599), a petition for certiorari was denied by the High Court. The denial leaves the 7/6/15 Third Circuit opinion in place which upheld U.S. EPA's plan to clean up Chesapeake Bay,      The high interest case involving many states and trade associations including Michigan, challenged EPA's "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that can be released into the Chesapeake Bay. Third Circuit Opinion: American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA