Here are the materials:
2015-1-30 ME WQS EPA Response to Comments
2015-2-2 ME WQS EPA Decision Letter Attachment A
Environmental
EPA Letter Review of the State Department’s Final SEIS on the Keystone Pipeline
Ninth Circuit Rules (Preliminarily) in Favor of Black Mesa Water Coalition in Attorney Fees Dispute
Here is the opinion in Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell. From the court’s summary:
The panel reversed in part, and vacated in part, the district court’s judgment in an action for costs and expenses brought by a plaintiff group of environmental and community organizations against the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement after plaintiff participated in a successful challenge to OSM’s grant of a coal mining permit revision.
Plaintiff petitioned the agency under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act’s administrative fee-award provision to recover costs and expenses from OSM. The administrative law judge dismissed the fee petition based on the conclusion that plaintiff was not “eligible,” and was not “entitled” to costs and expenses, under 43 C.F.R. § 4.1294(b).
The panel held that its review of the agency’s “eligibility” determination was de novo, and its review of the “entitlement” determination was for substantial evidence. The panel concluded that plaintiff was “eligible” for fees because it showed some degree of success on the merits, and the agency’s contrary conclusion was error as a matter of law. The panel vacated the portion of the district court’s decision as related to the question of entitlement. The panel declined to reach the issue whether plaintiff was “entitled” to fees, and remanded for the agency to consider the issue. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Secretary of the Interior had waived a challenge to the reasonableness of any award amount that the agency might grant on remand for costs and expenses reasonably incurred for plaintiff’s participation in the proceedings at the agency level.
And the briefs:
Black Mesa Supplemental Reply Brief
Oral argument audio here.
Complaint in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States over Uranium Mining Remediation on Pueblo of Laguna Lands
Here is the complaint in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):
An excerpt:
1. Atlantic Richfield seeks a declaration of its rights and other relief to prevent the United States from imposing upon Atlantic Richfield responsibility for funding or performing any environmental reclamation or remediation work at the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine (the “Jackpile Site” or the “Site”), because Atlantic Richfield paid $43,600,000 to the Laguna and the United States in 1986 for a comprehensive settlement and release of Atlantic Richfield’s environmental liability for the Site.
2. The Jackpile Site is located within the Pueblo of Laguna Reservation in Cibola County, New Mexico. Before, during, and after mining operations at the Site by Atlantic Richfield’s predecessor, the United States held legal title to some or all of the land within the Site. The United States currently holds legal title to some or all of the land within the Site. At all relevant times, the federal trust doctrine imposed, and continues to impose, fiduciary duties upon the United States with regard to all of the land within the Jackpile Site.
3. The United States promoted and encouraged uranium exploration and mining on the Pueblo of Laguna Reservation, including at the Jackpile Site. Beginning in the 1940s, the United States implemented a decades-long program to locate, acquire, and process uranium ore and to purchase uranium ore and uranium concentrate for military purposes. The United States’ uranium procurement program ultimately included the Jackpile Site. Until the late 1960s, the United States was the sole purchaser of all the uranium produced from domestic uranium mines, including from the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine. During this period, the United States exercised pervasive control over the domestic uranium industry, including all aspects of uranium exploration, production, processing, and marketing.
NYTs Op-Ed on Gray Wolves
Here is “High Noon for the Gray Wolf.”
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Wolf Management Plan
Here.
From 2013.
An excerpt:
The purpose of this plan is to provide a course of action that will ensure the long-term survival of a self-sustaining, wild gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in the 1842 ceded territory in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It is written to encourage cooperation among agencies, communities, private and corporate landowners, special interest groups, and all Michigan residents. The Plan conforms to the provisions of the Federal Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan, which includes Michigan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992), Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Management Plan (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1997), and the Michigan Wolf Management Plan (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 2008).
Colorado River Indian Tribes Sue Interior over Modified Blythe Solar Power Project
Here is the complaint in Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Dept. of Interior (C.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
This complaint challenges the actions of Defendants U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and their officials (collectively, “BLM” or “Defendants”) in approving the Modified Blythe Solar Power Project (“Blythe II” or “Project”), a utility-scale solar energy generation facility slated for development on federal land northwest of Blythe, California. As set forth below, this Court has jurisdiction over this action because it presents questions of federal law, involves federal defendants, and involves a federally recognized Indian tribe as plaintiff in a suit against federal defendants. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 1362.
The Project site is located within the ancestral homelands of the members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (“CRIT” or “Tribes”), whose reservation begins just a few miles northeast of the site. The religion and culture of CRIT’s members are strongly connected to the physical environment of the area, including the ancient trails, petroglyphs, grindstones, hammerstones, and other cultural resources known to exist there. The removal or destruction of these artifacts and the development of the Project as planned will cause CRIT, its government, and its members irreparable harm.
Culverts Case Implementation
Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) now has a website where you can learn more about their efforts to remove fish-blocking culverts. Facebook users can also access a time-lapse video of WDFW’s removal and replacement of a fish-blocking culvert pursuant to the district court’s order.
White Earth Nation v. Kerry — NEPA Challenge to International Pipeline
Here is the complaint, filed in the District of Minnesota:
Alec L. v. McCarthy — Climate Change Cert Petition
Here are the briefs in support of the petition:
Alec L v McCarthy Cert Petition
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.