Established in 1969 as the nation’s oldest law review dedicated solely to environmental issues, Environmental Law is a premier legal forum for environmental and natural resources scholarships. You will find selected articles and essays from our print journal, an archive of our 9th Circuit Case Review, and different legal templates. You can share your thoughts by posting comments and engaging in an online conversation with other legal minds. Check back for new online-only content in the near future.
Environmental Law and the companion online journal are published quarterly by Lewis & Clark Law School students, 10015 S.W. Terwilliger Blvd., Portland, OR 97219, in the Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. The views expressed in the volumes and online do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial boards.
As a part of our resources, we have a database of various legal templates that may come in handy either in your everyday or professional life. We’ve divided the documents into separate sections for your convenience.
The California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS) is the state agency that oversees several activities to provide food, medical services, and safety to those in need. The Agency implements different health care, social, and rehabilitation programs. If you are looking to apply for some of these, check the following templates. Also, you can report adult or elder abuse using these forms, as well as obtain an emergency disaster plan.
The Federal Motor Center Safety Administration (FMCSA) controls US commercial transportation and ensures that commercial drivers adhere to the safety rules on the roads. All commercial motor vehicle drivers are required not only to register themselves as commercial but also to pass a medical examination and complete all the relevant documentation on the issue. The templates below can help with this process.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is in charge of issues related to social insurance, disability insurance, and different benefits. The following forms can come in handy if you want to report a continuing disability or apply for death benefits. You will also need to use one of the forms to authorize the SSA to release your social security data.
The US Department of Labor manages employment agreements, maintains employees’ rights and benefits, and assures that all American workers are safe in their workplace. This section will present you with the most widely-used forms to administer employer-employee relationships. For example, Form OWCP-5c will help you evaluate the work capacity of your employees, and Form Form WC9552a will allow you to report job injuries if any occur.
Individuals address small claims courts to settle such issues as contractual disagreements, claims for personal harm or property damage, and claims regarding illegal eviction. Here, you will find general small claims forms and instructions that can help you manage the procedure of filing a small claims case. For example, you can authorize another person to appear in court on your behalf or request to postpone the trial using the templates below.
Healthcare facilities and hospitals tend to provide various legal forms for their patients. These forms can be general, like Authorization for Use and Disclosure of Protected Health Information, or specific, such as Diabetes Hypoglycemia Emergency Action Plan. You may select the necessary documents to prepare yourself in case of emergency or save some time you would have to spend in a clinic or hospital completing this documentation.
Every person has to deal with taxes. Every year, an employer or individual contractor must submit a tax return. Employers file the taxes on behalf of their employees, while independent contractors have to file them by themselves. We have a comprehensive list of the tax forms you may need to complete to apply for a business taxes registration, receive sales and use a tax certificate of exemption, and pay your estimated tax for a current year.
One of the most widely-used categories of legal templates is PDF forms for motor vehicles. They are used to register a newly purchased car, apply for a vehicle title, or obtain a parking placard for a person with a disability. You are recommended to use a damage disclosure statement to notify the buyer about any vehicle defects. It’s crucial not to underestimate these documents because failure to prepare the relevant paperwork may result in the transaction failing or legal action.
A limited liability company (LLC) is a specific type of private company in the United States; its members are not individually accountable for the company’s debts or obligations. If you want to set up an LLC, you must check the state and local requirements and prepare the necessary documentation. The forms below will facilitate the process of creating your LLC. You will find state-specific articles of organization, statutory agent registration, statement of termination, and annual report templates.
Apart from federal laws and regulations, American citizens must consider each state’s rules and requirements, especially when it comes to legal paperwork. In this section, you will find legal templates provided by the Department of Social Services and the Department of Revenue in Missouri. These documents can help you apply for Medicaid, file an individual income tax declaration, or request a child care provider payment resolution.
If you live in Pennsylvania, you can find useful forms in this section. They are related to different life spheres and include an exemption certificate, medical services questionnaire, a criminal record check request, and a direct deposit of annuity payments. For more information and instruction, look through the templates below.
When developing any legal document, it’s crucial to examine your state’s laws. Many legal forms require a specific procedure of filling them out or signing. We’ve gathered the essential state-specific documents below for your convenience. They include all the requirements, so you will have to spend less time to comply with state regulations. The following forms include, among others, an affidavit and self-executing waiver, separation notice, an application for the special license plate.
If you cannot find a suitable legal template above, you should not worry. We have a lot more forms available for you in this section. For example, you can use a seller’s disclosure statement to inform a prospective buyer about your property condition, or you may benefit from an application for a certificate of citizenship to change your immigration status. Run through the following documents and select the ones suiting your needs.
Please explore the website and the latest issue, which includes articles discussing environmental issues on local, state, tribal, and national levels. If you would like to be notified when our next issue becomes available online, please subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.
Changing Federal Priorities Midstream in Upstream Development: Federal Energy Development Lease Cancellations, Environmental Policy, Historic Preservation and Takings
This article specifically examines whether a federal oil and gas lease cancellation is a Fifth Amendment taking, for which a party must be justly compensated. The consequences of the Secretary
NEPA, FLPMA, AND IMPACT REDUCTION: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF BLM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND NEPA IN THE MOUNTAIN WEST
This article reviews Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) completed in conjunction with Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions conducted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.
Race, Ethnicity, and Air Pollution: New Directions in Environmental Justice
Environmental justice recognizes that low-income minority communities are disproportionately affected by air pollution and that this problem should be addressed through environmental law and policy.
REVITALIZING CRITICAL HABITAT: THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S PRO-EFFICIENCY APPROACH
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was passed into law in a time of sudden enlightenment. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Americans awoke to the bleak.
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 13, SHORELINE ARMORING, AND THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN COASTAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
The ongoing armoring of the nation’s coastlines with seawalls and bulkheads causes the inevitable destruction of miles of coastal wetlands. Armoring increases the rate of shoreline erosion and blocks.
The Environmental Law Review Syndicate (ELRS) is a collaborative effort of environmental law journals across the country to provide a new outlet for student scholarship and foster discussion of emerging environmental issues. Each Syndicate member will submit one student-written piece per semester, which all Syndicate members will post to their respective online journals. ELRS hopes to encourage greater cooperation among environmental law programs and provide a community where students can engage with other future leaders in environmental law.
Wildearth Guardians v. EPA (No. 12-71523, 2014)
Topics: Clean Air Act (CAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The panel dismissed in part and denied in part a petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the State of Nevada’s State Implementation Plan for regional haze under the Clean Air Act. WildEarth Guardians, a non-profit environmental organization, alleged that Nevada’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) was inadequate, and the EPA’s decision to approve it was arbitrary and capricious.
The panel held that WildEarth Guardians lacked Article III standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of the SIP’s formulation of reasonable progress goals for improving visibility conditions in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area in northeastern Nevada.
The panel also held that WildEarth Guardians had standing to challenge the EPA’s decision to approve Nevada’s Sulfur Dioxide Best Available Retrofit Technology determination for the Reid Gardner Generating Station in southern Nevada, but concluded that the EPA’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
The panel further concluded that the EPA’s approval of Nevada’s SIP did not violate any requirements imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 7410(1).
People of the State of California v. US Dept. of the Interior (No. 12-55856, 2014)
Topics: Clean Air Act (CAA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of federal defendants and intervenor water districts in action, challenging an environmental impact statement prepared by the Secretary of the Interior that analyzed the effects of water transfer agreements on the Salton Sea in southern California.
The panel disagreed with the district court and held that the plaintiffs, Imperial County and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, had the standing to sue. The panel nonetheless affirmed the judgment because the district court correctly found in the alternative that the Secretary of the Interior did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act.
The panel also held that the record below made plain that the Secretary did not violate the Clean Air Act.
In Defense of Animals v. Dep’t of the Interior (No. 12-17804, 2014)
Topics: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of federal defendants in action alleging that the roundup, or gather, of wild horses and burros from the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area on the California-Nevada border violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. According to its authority under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (the “Act”), the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) establishes Appropriate Management Levels for populations of native species – including wild horses and burros – and introduced animals, such as livestock. The BLM removes animals from the Herd Management Area when the population exceeds the appropriate management level. The panel held that the BLM acted within its authority under the Act when it implemented the 2010 Gather Plan on the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area.
The panel also held that the BLM’s decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) was not arbitrary and capricious because the BLM provided a convincing statement of why the gathering’s environmental effects would not be significant. The panel also held that the BLM did not act arbitrarily and capriciously under NEPA when it responded to comments highlighting the possibility of scientific dissent regarding administering the immunocontraceptive PZP. Judge Rawlinson dissented because she did not agree that the roundup of the wild horses by the BLM complied with the Act.
League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton (No. 13-35653, 2014)
Topics: Environmental Impact Statement, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Preliminary Injunction, United States Forest Service (USFS)
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the Snow Basin logging project in Oregon and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction, the scope of which the district court should determine on remand.
The panel held that the plaintiffs had shown that they are likely to prevail on their National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) claim regarding the final Environmental Impact Statement’s discussion of elk habitat because that discussion was insufficiently clear, and therefore the analysis of the project’s effects on elk failed to satisfy NEPA requirements.
The panel also held that the plaintiffs had shown that they were likely to face irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.
The panel further held that the plaintiffs had shown that the balance of equities tipped in their favor and that the public interest supported the granting of a preliminary injunction.
The panel reversed the district court on this claim but affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their remaining claims.
The panel remanded with instructions for the district court to enter a preliminary injunction sufficient to protect the status quo while the United States Forest Service completed a supplemental environmental impact statement.
National Resources Defense Council v. Jewell (No. 09-17661, 2014)
Topics: Bureau of Reclamation, Delta-Mendota Canal Unit Water Services Contracts, Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Sacramento River Settlement Contracts, United States Forest Service (USFS)
The en banc court reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of federal defendants in an action brought by environmental groups concerning long-term water contracts the federal Bureau of Reclamation entered about California’s Central Valley Project; the threatened delta smelt and the requirement under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act that federal agencies must consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service prior to taking any agency action that could affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat.
The en banc court held that intervening events did not render the action moot. The en banc court also held that the contractual provisions of the Delta-Mendota Canal Unit Water Services Contracts before the court did not deprive plaintiffs of standing to bring a procedural challenge under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. Further, concerning the Sacramento River Settlement Contracts, the en banc court held that the federal Bureau of Reclamation was required to engage in Section 7(a)(2) consultation because, in renewing the challenged contracts, it retained “some discretion” to act in a manner that would benefit the delta smelt.
Republic of Ecuador v. MacKay (No. 12-15572, 2014)
Topics: Civil Procedure
The panel affirmed two district courts’ decisions ordering the production of documents for use in a foreign proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
The panel held that the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 did not fundamentally change the scope of work product protection for expert materials. It, therefore, rejected the argument that the district courts erred because many of the documents at issue were presumptively immune from discovery under Rule 26(b)(3)’s protection for trial preparation materials.
Arriving at the same result as two other circuits, the panel held that Rule 26(b)(3) does not provide presumptive protection for all testifying expert materials as trial preparation materials.
Native Village of Point Hope v. Jewell (No. 12-35287, 2014)
Topics: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Environmental Impact Statement, Oil and Gas
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of federal defendants in an action challenging the government’s environmental impact statements analyzing the environmental effects of proposed leases for oil and gas development in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska.
The panel held that the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the federal defendants correctly accounted for incomplete or unavailable information. However, the panel held that the reliance in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a one billion barrel estimate of total economically recoverable oil was arbitrary and capricious.
The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Judge Rawlinson concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge Rawlinson agreed with most of the majority opinion. Still, she did not agree that the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement acted arbitrarily in selecting one billion barrels of oil as the benchmark for analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed leases.
Jones v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries (No. 11-35954, 2013)
Topics: Clean Water Act (CWA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in an action under the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act challenging the Corps’ issuance of a permit as part of a project to mine valuable mineral sands near Coos Bay, Oregon.
The panel held that the Corps complied with the National Environmental Policy Act because the Corps correctly considered the risks of hexavalent chromium generation; the Corps properly considered that the risk of hexavalent chromium generation did not warrant a complete environmental impact statement, and the Corps correctly declined to consider cumulative impacts of future chromium mining.
The panel also held that the Corps’ analysis of alternative sites and project designs did not violate the Clean Water Act.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (No. 12-70268, 2013)
Topics: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
The panel granted in part and denied in part a petition for review of a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency granting an application for conditional registration of two pesticides, AGS-20 and AGS-20 U, that applicant HeiQ Materials sought to apply to manufactured textiles such as clothing, blankets, and carpet.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act proits the sale of any pesticide that has not been “registered” with the Environmental Protection Agency. AGS-20 and AGS-29U (collectively, “AGS-20) use nanosilver to suppress the growth of microbes that cause odors, stains, discoloration, and degradation. The EPA conducted a risk assessment of AGS-20 published in its decision granting HeiQ’s application for conditional registration.
The panel first held that petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. had Article III standing to challenge the EPA’s conditional registration of AGS-20.
Second, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the EPA’s decision to use the characteristics of toddlers rather than infants in determining whether AGS-20 placed consumers at risk.
Third, the panel vacated the EPA’s decision insofar as it concluded that there was no risk concern requiring mitigation for short- and intermediate-term aggregate oral and dermal exposure to textiles that are surface-coated with AGS-20.
Fourth, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the EPA’s decision not to consider additional sources of exposure to nanosilver other than AGS-20 in concluding that the product would not have adverse effects on consumers.
District Judge Adelman concurred in the judgment insofar as it granted the petition in part, remanded to the EPA, and dissented from the judgment insofar as it denied the petition in part. Judge Adelman would grant the petition for review in full.
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey (No. 12-15131, 2013)
Topics: California Air Resources Board (CARB), Clean Air Act (CAA), Dormant Commerce Clause, Fuel Standards, Pike Balancing Test, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment, vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, and remanded in an action which alleged that California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17, §§ 95480–90 (2011), violated the dormant Commerce Clause and was preempted by Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o).
The panel held that the Fuel Standard’s ethanol provisions were not facially discriminatory and reversed that portion of the district court’s decision and remanded for entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”).
The panel also reversed the district court’s decision that the Fuel Standard was an impermissible extraterritorial regulation. The panel directed that an order of partial summary judgment be entered in favor of CARB on those grounds. The panel remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the ethanol provisions discriminate in purpose or effect and, if not, to apply the balancing test established in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970).
The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Fuel Standard’s crude oil provisions (the 2011 Provisions) were not facially discriminatory but reversed the district court’s holding that the 2011 Provisions were discriminatory in purpose and effect. The panel directed the district court to enter an order of partial summary judgment in favor of CARB on those issues. The panel remanded the district court to apply the Pike balancing test to the 2011 Provisions.
The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Section 211(c)(4)(b) of the Clean Air Act does not insulate California from scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause.
The panel remanded the district court with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction. The panel expressed no opinion on the plaintiffs’ claim that the Fuel Standard is preempted by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The panel also expressed no opinion on CARB’s claim that the savings clause in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 precludes implied preemption by the RFS.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Murguia agreed with the majority’s conclusions concerning the crude oil regulations and preemption under the Clean Air Act. She dissented from the majority’s conclusion that ethanol regulations do not facially discriminate against interstate commerce.
Environmental Law welcomes responsible comment from all sides of any environmental legal issue. Hard copy manuscripts submitted to Environmental Law will not be returned unless accompanied by a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. All manuscripts must be submitted with footnotes and may either be submitted in hard copy or by email. Citations should conform with The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (19th ed. 2010).