AP story is here.
An article about the history of the site and its proximity (and potential danger) to the Columbia River is here.
Finally, here is an article from two years ago, which discusses the results of the contamination and the Yakama Nation’s repeated attempts to get the U.S. government to acknowledge the problem.
Here.
An excerpt:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering eliminating most public oversight of wind turbine impacts on protected bald and golden eagles by offering developers 30-year permits to kill eagles by accident, as opposed to the current 5-year permits. What’s more, they’re shaping the implementation of that proposed policy change in a series of private “stakeholders'” meetings to which the public is not invited.
American Bird Conservancy letter here.
Here, from SCOTUSblog. The case is set for Conference on March 15, 2013.
Lower court materials here (case formerly captioned as Karuk Tribe of California v. USFS). Previous post here.
Our own Victoria Sweet — the 2013-14 ILPC Fellow — has organized an amazing legal symposium — “Battle for the North: Is All Quiet on the Arctic Front?” She put together an amazing line-up of international scholars — and the leader of the US Coast Guard will unveil a new strategic approach to the Arctic at the conference.
Here is the symposium website. And here is the description:
This symposium will highlight the current concerns and questions surrounding the Arctic. The event will raise awareness of and encourage discussion about various topics such as: international security concerns; indigenous people in the Arctic region; environmental law; regulation, governance and management of Arctic lands and resources; exploration, exploitation, and transportation of oil, gas, and minerals; and the law of the sea.
Papers will be published in the Michigan State International Law Review.
Agenda:
| 5:00 p.m. | Check In: Kellogg Hotel & Conference Center, Big Ten C |
|---|---|
| 5:30 p.m. | Reception |
| 6:00 p.m. | Dinner |
| 7:00 p.m. | Opening Remarks Victoria Sweet, Executive Editor, Michigan State International Law Review Bruce W. Bean, Professor and Michigan State International Law Review Faculty Advisor, Michigan State University College of Law, International Law Review Faculty Advisor |
| 7:15 p.m. | Keynote Lawson Brigham, “The New Maritime Arctic: Global Connections and Complex Challenges” |
| 7:45 p.m. | The Impacts of Climate Change Moderator: Jennifer Carter-Johnson, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University College of Law Sumudu Atapattu, “Climate Change, Indigenous Peoples and the Arctic: The Changing Horizon of International Law” Avi Brisman, “Climate Change and the Future of the Arctic: Cultural and Environmental Considerations” |
| 8:30 p.m. | Closing Remarks |
| 8:00 a.m. | Breakfast and Registration: MSU College of Law Castle Boardroom |
|---|---|
| 8:45 a.m. | Opening Remarks Dean Joan W. Howarth, Dean, Michigan State University College of Law |
| 9:00 a.m. | Keynote Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney Jr., “The U.S. Coast Guard and the Challenge of the Arctic” |
| 9:35 a.m. | Arctic Governance Moderator: Michael Lawrence, Associate Dean, Michigan State University College of Law Waliul Hasanat, “Reforming the Arctic Council against Increasing Climate Change Challenges in the North” Tanja Joona, “ILO Convention 69 and the Governance of Indigenous Nordic Lands” Tony Penikett & Adam Goldenberg, “Devolution & Democracy – Equal Citizenship in Canada’s North” Danielle Sibener Pensley, “Subsistence as Resistance: Implications of Environmental Ethics for Property Law” |
| 10:45 a.m. | Coffee Break |
| 11:05 a.m. | Shipping & The Law of the Sea Moderator: Beverly Moran, Visiting Professor, Michigan State University College of Law, (visiting from Vanderbilt University College of Law) Erik Franckx, “The Northern Sea Route Shipping Season 2012: A First Assessment” Donald R. Rothwell, “International Law and Arctic Shipping” Ingvild Jakobsen, “The Adequacy of the Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law to the Arctic Ocean” |
| 12:05 a.m. | Lunch |
| 12:40 p.m. | Keynote Timo Koivurova, “Final Battle over the ‘Final’ Hydrocarbon Province – the Arctic” |
| 1:15 p.m | Indigenous Peoples’ Resources and Lands Moderator: Wenona Singel, Associate Professor, Michigan State University College of Law Dorothee Cambou, “Control over Resources: A Prerequisite for the Realization of the Arctic Indigenous Right to Self-Determination” Tim Heleniak, “The Migration of Arctic Populations” Susann Funderud Skogvang, “Legal Questions Regarding Mineral Exploration and Exploitation in Indigenous Areas: Examples from Sami Areas in Norway” Rutherford Hubbard, “Risk, Rights and Responsibility: Navigating Corporate Responsibility and Indigenous Rights in Greenlandic Extractive Industry Development” |
| 2:25 p.m. | Coffee Break |
| 2:45 p.m. | Natural Resources Moderator: Noga Morag-Levine, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law Andrew van Wagner, “A Heating Competition for Unclaimed Resources” Vladimir Gladyshev, “Delimitation Issues: Cutting up the Arctic Pie” Nikolas Sellheim, “The Neglected Tradition? – The Crafting of the EU Seal Products Ban and Commercial Sealing” Betsy Baker, “Governance of the Marine Arctic for Resource Development” |
| 3:55 p.m. | Coffee Break |
| 4:15 p.m. | Arctic Security Moderator: John Reifenberg, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law Adele Buckley, “Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Treaty Ratification by Non-Nuclear Weapons States Models Cooperation and Presses Nuclear Weapon States to New Strategy” Natalia Loukacheva, “Polar Law, Arctic Security and Geo-Political Trends” Zhixiong Huang, “Governance of the Arctic: The Role of China” |
| 5:15 p.m. | Closing Remarks |
Here are the updated materials in Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Park Service (W.D. Wash.):
126 -ORDER GRANTING TRIBAL MTN TO DISMISS
114 – Tribal Mtn to Dsm – Subject Matter
116 – US Response Tribe Motion Dismiss
117- WFC Response Tribal Motion Dismiss
Here is the opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar. From the court’s summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in an action challenging the decision to allow Denison Mines Corp. to restart mining operations at the Arizona 1 Mine. As a threshold issue, the panel held that a decision made by a prior panel of this court affirming the district court’s denial of appellants’ preliminary injunction motion did not become law of the case as to any issue. The panel held that the Bureau of Land Management did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and BLM’s own regulations, by permitting Denison Mines to restart mining operations under a plan of operations that BLM approved in 1988. The panel also held that BLM’s update of the Arizona 1 Mine reclamation bond should not be set aside. Finally, the panel held that BLM’s application of the categorical exclusion for issuance of the Robinson Wash gravel permit was not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Briefs and materials here.
An excerpt:
Odds are little of oil from the Keystone XL pipeline will make it into American markets. According to TransCanada itself, this project will NOT reduce the price of gas in the United States (it will actually increase gas prices in the Midwest). It will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will create only a few thousand temporary jobs.
Legal analysis on the import of the treaty from the international law scholars at Opinio Juris, here. An excerpt:
Beyond the U.S. law, there’s also a fairly interesting issue of how international law regards this sort of treaty-making. As I’ve written previously, international law imposes two conditions on treaty-making by a sub-national actor: (1) explicit treaty-making authority from the State of which it is a component part (whether ex-ante or ex-post); and (2) the consent of potential treaty-partners to the sub-national actors’ participation in the treaty itself. Here, it seems we have a willing group of treaty partners, so the treaty seems OK on the second element (that is, assuming the Canadian First Nations are themselves authorized to make treaties under Canadian law). Still, there are questions as to whether the United States has to authorize this treaty, whether it has done so (or will need to do so going forward), and why it would ever do so when the treaty’s objective would be to lobby and/or constrain federal government behavior. Now, there is an argument that, as indigenous peoples, Native American tribes should not be subject to the standard rules for treaty-making by sub-national actors (indeed, Article 36(1) of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights makes just such a claim). But, the United States was one of four nations to object to that Declaration (along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand), so I’m hard pressed to see it getting traction in this case, especially where the treaty involves an alliance of indigenous peoples to oppose federal licensing efforts (and with it perhaps some key aspects of U.S. energy policy).
As such, I think the ball is now firmly in the Obama Administration’s court. I’m interested to see how it responds to this treaty (including, which Agency takes the lead in responding to it). I suppose silence is a possible course of action. But, if the federal government remains silent, I think that might lead to arguments of U.S. tacit approval for this treaty in particular, and even more broadly, a right of treaty making with foreign powers for U.S. Native American tribes.
For a primer on intertribal treaty making, see Wenona Singel’s Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability (email me if you want a pdf).
From the Brookings Institute site:
“For thousands of years, Arctic peoples have migrated in response to changing environmental conditions. But today climate change is putting unprecedented pressure on those indigenous communities. Temperatures are rising much faster in the Arctic than in the rest of the world, raising questions about the extent to which significant numbers of indigenous people will move away from their traditional habitats and whether they will be able to maintain their cultures and livelihoods. For the 400,000 indigenous people in the Arctic these are not only questions of adaptation but also of culture and survival.”
The issue of internal displacement also lead to questions of governmental and administrative responsibilities. If an Indigenous community is displaced because of rising waters, will the government set aside new lands? Where would they be? Would current subsistence and cultural needs also be considered? Some serious concerns for communities in Alaska as well as Indigenous communities around the world.
Here is the link to the articles:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/01/30-arctic-displacement-climate-change
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.