ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Environmentalists in Alaska filed a lawsuit on Tuesday seeking to block a Trump administration plan to open vast swaths of the nation’s largest national forest to logging, nearly a third of it in old-growth timber.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, seeks to stop the U.S. Forest Service from going ahead with what opponents say would mark the largest sale of timber from the Tongass National Forest in 30 years under a plan the agency approved in March.

The court challenge argues that the sale would open old-growth woodlands on Prince of Wales Island in the Tongass to wide-scale logging without proper study of the environmental impact on what remains of North America’s largest temperate rain forest.

The timber sale was approved before the Forest Service had even identified specific sites where tree harvests and road-building would take place, the lawsuit said.

“This is a brazen attempt by the Forest Service to rewrite the rules for the forest, and it’s coming at the expense of habitat on Prince of Wales Island that’s important for wildlife and for people and communities, for hunting, fishing, recreation and tourism,” said Tom Waldo, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, the environmental group Earthjustice.

The Forest Service had no immediate comment.

The sale would put as much as 656 million board feet of timber up for auction over several years, 235 million of which is old-growth timber, Waldo said.

The sale area occupies 2.2 million acres, most of that within the boundaries of the Tongass, he said. Overall, more than 42,000 acres could be logged under the plan, with the remaining acreage open to road construction and related activities, according to Waldo.

The Tongass sprawls over nearly 17 million acres of spruce- and hemlock-covered islands, rain-drenched coastline and mountains making up most of Alaska’s southeastern panhandle. It is renowned for its centuries-old trees, its abundant salmon runs and wildlife, including bears, wolves and eagles.

Timber industry supporters see the forest as a vast storehouse of valuable wood commodities.

The lawsuit represents the latest volley in clashes between conservation groups and commercial timber interests over management of the Tongass going back several decades. In 2016, the Obama administration ended old-growth logging in national forests. </s> ANCHORAGE — Eight environmental groups brought a federal complaint to block one of the largest logging projects in national forests in a generation, including thousands of acres of old-growth timber, in the Tongass National Forest. </s> The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the National Energy Board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.’s project to be overturned

The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned the Trudeau government’s approval of the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

In a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges, the court says the National Energy Board’s review of the project was so flawed that the federal government could not rely on it as a basis for its decision to approve the expansion.

The court also concludes that the federal government failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with First Nations before giving the green light to the project.

The decision came mere moments after Kinder Morgan shareholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of finalizing the sale of Trans Mountain to the Canadian government.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government approved the project in 2016 and is so determined to see the line built that it announced plans this spring to buy the pipeline and expansion project for $4.5 billion.

The court ruling requires the energy board to conduct a new review — which the court suggests could be kept short — and means the government will have to redo part of its consultations with Indigenous groups.

The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the energy board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada’s project to be overturned.

First Nations, including the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish on British Columbia’s south coast, argued that Ottawa did not adequately consult them before the review or the cabinet decision to approve the project.

Lawyers for the federal government told court that Ottawa conducted extensive consultations.

Environmental groups and the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby also challenged the project in Federal Court last fall. They were supported by the province of British Columbia, which acted as an intervener.

Alberta was also an intervener and the province’s lawyer told the court Ottawa’s decision to approve the pipeline expansion was based on broad evidence that considered environmental, economic and Indigenous interests.

The expansion would triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline from near Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., to 890,000 barrels a day. It would also increase the number of tankers in Burrard Inlet seven-fold.

The court ruled that the review contained one fatal flaw: it excluded the project’s impact on marine shipping. That, in turn, meant that the energy board did not assess the potential impact of increased tanker traffic on the southern resident killer whale population.

That failure “was so critical that the Governor in Council could not functionally make the kind of assessment of the project’s environmental effects and the public interest that the (environmental assessment) legislation requires,” says the ruling written by Justice Eleanor Dawson.

As for consultations with Indigenous communities, the court found that the government’s representatives “limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers.” There was no “meaningful two-way dialogue.”

“The Indigenous applicants were entitled to a dialogue that demonstrated that Canada not only heard but also gave serious consideration to the specific and real concerns the Indigenous applicants put to Canada, gave serious consideration to proposed accommodation measures and explained how the concerns of the Indigenous applicants impacted Canada’s decision to approve the project.”

The Federal Court case was the most significant legal challenge facing the project and the decision may still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Representatives from the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh along with other First Nations spokespeople were expected to comment on the ruling at a media event.

Kinder Morgan had already won several court victories, including one last week when the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application from the City of Burnaby to overturn a lower court decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal is expected to release a judgment today on whether the federal government adequately consulted First Nations on the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the National Energy Board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.’s project to be overturned.

First Nations, including the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish on British Columbia’s south coast, argued the federal government did not adequately consult them before the energy board review or the cabinet decision to approve the project.

Lawyers for the federal government told court that Ottawa conducted extensive consultation.

Environmental groups and the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby also challenged the project in Federal Court last fall, supported by British Columbia, which was an intervener.

Alberta was also an intervener and the province’s lawyer told the court that Ottawa’s decision to approve the expansion was based on evidence that considered environmental, economic and Indigenous interests.

Kinder Morgan shareholders are also set to vote today on whether to approve the sale of the pipeline and expansion project to the Canadian government for $4.5 billion.

Related: Trans Mountain pipeline: How we got here

Related: TIMELINE: Key dates in the history of the Trans Mountain pipeline

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. </s> The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the National Energy Board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.’s project to be overturned

The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned the Trudeau government’s approval of the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

In a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges, the court says the National Energy Board’s review of the project was so flawed that the federal government could not rely on it as a basis for its decision to approve the expansion.

The court also concludes that the federal government failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with First Nations before giving the green light to the project.

The decision came less than an hour before Kinder Morgan shareholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of finalizing the sale of Trans Mountain to the Canadian government.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government approved the project in 2016 and is so determined to see the line built that it announced plans this spring to buy the pipeline and expansion project for $4.5 billion.

The court ruling requires the energy board to conduct a new review — which the court suggests could be kept short — and means the government will have to redo part of its consultations with Indigenous groups.

The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the energy board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada’s project to be overturned.

First Nations, including the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish on British Columbia’s south coast, argued that Ottawa did not adequately consult them before the review or the cabinet decision to approve the project.

Lawyers for the federal government told court that Ottawa conducted extensive consultations.

Environmental groups and the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby also challenged the project in Federal Court last fall. They were supported by the province of British Columbia, which acted as an intervener.

Alberta was also an intervener and the province’s lawyer told the court Ottawa’s decision to approve the pipeline expansion was based on broad evidence that considered environmental, economic and Indigenous interests.

The expansion would triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline from near Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., to 890,000 barrels a day. It would also increase the number of tankers in Burrard Inlet seven-fold.

The court ruled that the review contained one fatal flaw: it excluded the project’s impact on marine shipping. That, in turn, meant that the energy board did not assess the potential impact of increased tanker traffic on the southern resident killer whale population.

That failure “was so critical that the Governor in Council could not functionally make the kind of assessment of the project’s environmental effects and the public interest that the (environmental assessment) legislation requires,” says the ruling written by Justice Eleanor Dawson.

As for consultations with Indigenous communities, the court found that the government’s representatives “limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers.” There was no “meaningful two-way dialogue.”

“The Indigenous applicants were entitled to a dialogue that demonstrated that Canada not only heard but also gave serious consideration to the specific and real concerns the Indigenous applicants put to Canada, gave serious consideration to proposed accommodation measures and explained how the concerns of the Indigenous applicants impacted Canada’s decision to approve the project.”

The Federal Court case was the most significant legal challenge facing the project and the decision may still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Representatives from the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh along with other First Nations spokespeople were expected to comment on the ruling at a media event.

Kinder Morgan had already won several court victories, including one last week when the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application from the City of Burnaby to overturn a lower court decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal is expected to release a judgment today on whether the federal government adequately consulted First Nations on the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the National Energy Board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.’s project to be overturned.

First Nations, including the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish on British Columbia’s south coast, argued the federal government did not adequately consult them before the energy board review or the cabinet decision to approve the project.

Lawyers for the federal government told court that Ottawa conducted extensive consultation.

Environmental groups and the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby also challenged the project in Federal Court last fall, supported by British Columbia, which was an intervener.

Alberta was also an intervener and the province’s lawyer told the court that Ottawa’s decision to approve the expansion was based on evidence that considered environmental, economic and Indigenous interests.

Kinder Morgan shareholders are also set to vote today on whether to approve the sale of the pipeline and expansion project to the Canadian government for $4.5 billion.

Related: Trans Mountain pipeline: How we got here

Related: TIMELINE: Key dates in the history of the Trans Mountain pipeline

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. </s> WARSAW (Reuters) - Security guards in Poland's Bialowieza Forest have forcibly ejected protesters who sought to stop the felling of trees in one of Europe's last primeval woods, a project that has drawn the threat of a European Union lawsuit.

Earlier this month UNESCO called on Poland to halt logging in Bialowieza, saying it could otherwise decide to put the forest on its list of world heritage sites in danger, while the European Commission asked the European Court of Justice for interim steps to suspend the logging.

 The row is one in a series of clashes between Poland's nationalist-minded government and EU authorities in Brussels. On Friday, Polish lawmakers were set to defy the EU and opposition protesters by backing an overhaul of the judiciary denounced by critics as a lurch towards authoritarianism.

 Soon after the conservative Law and Justice party took power in 2015, Environment Minister Jan Szyszko, a hunter backed by powerful forester and hunter lobbies, approved a tripling in the volume of wood to be harvested in part of Bialowieza.

 Szyszko has argued that logging is needed to protect the woods against a beetle outbreak that is destroying spruce trees in the forest in northeast Poland. 

 In a video seen by Reuters and provided by the conservationist Wild Poland Foundation, guards from an agency that oversees state-run forests used force to carry away several protesters who tried to block the loggers. 

 "The increased logging of old growth forest stands is taking place in Bialowieza Forest. (...) The Ministry has totally ignored both UNESCO and the European Commission," the Wild Poland Foundation said in a statement. 

 The Wild Poland Foundation as well as Greenpeace said their activists were continuing to protest and impede the forest harvesters and expressed concern over "escalating violence" from state authorities. 

 "The protests are being stopped in a more aggressive way then before. The foresters are using more people to protect the machines; they mobilized forest guards from all over Poland," the Wild Poland Foundation statement said. 

 Officials at the environment ministry were not immediately available for comment. 

 In a separate statement on Friday, the ministry criticized non-government organizations for their appeal to protect the independence of courts as parliament pressed on with the judicial overhaul.

 "The appeal clearly shows that the so called environmentalists have taken the side of the total opposition," the ministry statement said.

 

 (Reporting by Agnieszka Barteczko; editing by Mark Heinrich) </s> WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a member of the Crow tribe who was fined for hunting elk in Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest, giving him a good chance to get a more than $8,000 fine against him overturned.

The 5-4 decision from the justices is a win for Clayvin Herrera and his tribe, which had argued they had hunting rights in the forest.

Herrera's case began in 2014 when he went hunting with family. The group began on the Crow tribe's reservation in southern Montana but crossed into the neighboring Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming, where they killed several elk.

Soon after, a game warden saw photos Herrera posted on a bragging website for hunters, including one of him crouched in the snow behind an elk he shot and another with its antlers balanced on his shoulders. The game warden ultimately identified the area where the photos were taken in the Bighorn National Forest, and Herrera was cited for killing an elk there during the winter, when it is prohibited.

But Herrera, backed by the federal government, argued that when his tribe gave up land in present-day Montana and Wyoming under an 1868 treaty, the tribe retained the right to hunt on the land, including land that became Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest.

The state of Wyoming had argued that the Crow tribe's hunting rights ceased to exist after Wyoming became a state in 1890 or after Bighorn National Forest was established in 1897. But the Supreme Court disagreed, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining his four liberal colleagues -- justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- in ruling for Herrera.

The court's four other justices said they would have ruled that a prior case settled that Crow tribe members like Herrera don't have an unrestricted right to hunt and fish in the Bighorn National Forest and are subject to the game laws of Wyoming.

The ruling does not immediately resolve the issue of Herrera's fine. The Supreme Court said in sending the case back to lower courts that the state can argue that it can regulate hunting by Crow tribe members if it is necessary for wildlife conservation. The state can also try to argue that the tribe's treaty rights didn't extend to the specific area of Bighorn National Forest where he was hunting. But Herrera's lawyers have argued that the location where he was hunting was covered by the treaty and have said data shows that elk are overpopulated in the state.

The state can pursue the case or drop it. In a statement, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon noted that there are outstanding issues in the case which Wyoming courts will resolve. He said his administration will "stand up for a system that preserves the decades of conservation work that has built a strong wildlife population in the Bighorns" and "work to find solutions for all those who hunt."

George Hicks, an attorney for Herrera, said in a statement that his lawyers are gratified by the court's ruling.

Information for this article was contributed by Mead Gruver of The Associated Press. </s> VANCOUVER—The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned the Trudeau government’s approval of the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

In a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges, the court says the National Energy Board’s review of the project was so flawed that the federal government could not rely on it as a basis for its decision to approve the expansion.

The court also concludes that the federal government failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with First Nations before giving the green light to the project.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government approved the project in 2016 and is so determined to see the line built that it announced plans this spring to buy the pipeline and expansion project for $4.5 billion.

The court ruling requires the energy board to conduct a new review—which the court suggests could be kept short—and means the government will have to redo part of its consultations with Indigenous groups.

The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the energy board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada’s project to be overturned.

First Nations, including the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish on British Columbia’s south coast, argued that Ottawa did not adequately consult them before the review or the cabinet decision to approve the project.

Lawyers for the federal government told court that Ottawa conducted extensive consultations.

Environmental groups and the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby also challenged the project in Federal Court last fall. They were supported by the province of British Columbia, which acted as an intervener.

Alberta was also an intervener and the province’s lawyer told the court Ottawa’s decision to approve the pipeline expansion was based on broad evidence that considered environmental, economic and Indigenous interests.

The expansion would triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline from near Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., to 890,000 barrels a day. It would also increase the number of tankers in Burrard Inlet seven-fold.

The court ruled that the review contained one fatal flaw: it excluded the project’s impact on marine shipping. That, in turn, meant that the energy board did not assess the potential impact of increased tanker traffic on the southern resident killer whale population.

That failure “was so critical that the Governor in Council could not functionally make the kind of assessment of the project’s environmental effects and the public interest that the (environmental assessment) legislation requires,” says the ruling written by Justice Eleanor Dawson.

As for consultations with Indigenous communities, the court found that the government’s representatives “limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers.” There was no “meaningful two-way dialogue.”

“The Indigenous applicants were entitled to a dialogue that demonstrated that Canada not only heard but also gave serious consideration to the specific and real concerns the Indigenous applicants put to Canada, gave serious consideration to proposed accommodation measures and explained how the concerns of the Indigenous applicants impacted Canada’s decision to approve the project.”

The Federal Court case was the most significant legal challenge facing the project and the decision may still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Representatives from the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh along with other First Nations spokespeople were expected to comment on the ruling at a media event.

Kinder Morgan had already won several court victories, including one last week when the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application from the City of Burnaby to overturn a lower court decision. </s> VANCOUVER — The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned the Trudeau government’s approval of the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

In a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges, the court says the National Energy Board’s review of the project was so flawed that the federal government could not rely on it as a basis for its decision to approve the expansion.

The court also concludes that the federal government failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with First Nations before giving the green light to the project.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government approved the project in 2016 and is so determined to see the line built that it announced plans this spring to buy the pipeline and expansion project for $4.5 billion.

The court ruling requires the energy board to conduct a new review — which the court suggests could be kept short — and means the government will have to redo part of its consultations with Indigenous groups.

The court combined into one case nearly two dozen lawsuits calling for the energy board’s review of Kinder Morgan Canada’s project to be overturned.

First Nations, including the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish on British Columbia’s south coast, argued that Ottawa did not adequately consult them before the review or the cabinet decision to approve the project.

Lawyers for the federal government told court that Ottawa conducted extensive consultations.

Environmental groups and the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby also challenged the project in Federal Court last fall. They were supported by the province of British Columbia, which acted as an intervener.

Alberta was also an intervener and the province’s lawyer told the court Ottawa’s decision to approve the pipeline expansion was based on broad evidence that considered environmental, economic and Indigenous interests.

The expansion would triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline from near Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., to 890,000 barrels a day. It would also increase the number of tankers in Burrard Inlet seven-fold.

The court ruled that the review contained one fatal flaw: it excluded the project’s impact on marine shipping. That, in turn, meant that the energy board did not assess the potential impact of increased tanker traffic on the southern resident killer whale population.

That failure “was so critical that the Governor in Council could not functionally make the kind of assessment of the project’s environmental effects and the public interest that the (environmental assessment) legislation requires,” says the ruling written by Justice Eleanor Dawson.

As for consultations with Indigenous communities, the court found that the government’s representatives “limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers.” There was no “meaningful two-way dialogue.”

“The Indigenous applicants were entitled to a dialogue that demonstrated that Canada not only heard but also gave serious consideration to the specific and real concerns the Indigenous applicants put to Canada, gave serious consideration to proposed accommodation measures and explained how the concerns of the Indigenous applicants impacted Canada’s decision to approve the project.”

The Federal Court case was the most significant legal challenge facing the project and the decision may still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Representatives from the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh along with other First Nations spokespeople were expected to comment on the ruling at a media event.

Kinder Morgan had already won several court victories, including one last week when the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application from the City of Burnaby to overturn a lower court decision.
• Trudeau dogged by pipeline protesters as he visits B.C. forestry centre </s> A federal judge in Alaska late Friday declared President Trump’s order revoking a sweeping ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean illegal, putting 128 million acres of federal waters off limits to energy exploration.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason represented the third legal setback to Trump’s energy and environmental policies in a single week. On Friday the judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama in 2012, also blocked a land swap the Interior Department arranged that would pave the way for road through wilderness in a major national wildlife refuge in Alaska.

Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service illegally approved two gas drilling plans in western Colorado, on the grounds that officials did not adequately analyze their wildlife and climate impacts.

Trump’s rollbacks of Obama-era conservation policies have suffered nearly two dozen setbacks in federal court, largely on procedural grounds. While the administration is appealing many of these decisions, and holds an advantage if the cases reach the Supreme Court, the rulings have slowed the president’s drive to expand fossil fuel production in the United States.

Earlier this month, for example, a federal judge halted drilling on more than 300,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Wyoming. And Friday’s decision on offshore drilling could affect a five-year leasing plan the administration plans to issue this summer, as well as block the six offshore lease sales it proposed to schedule in the Arctic Ocean starting as early as this year.

“President Trump’s lawlessness is catching up with him,” Erik Grafe, the lead attorney from Earthjustice who argued to reinstate Obama’s leasing withdrawals in the Arctic and Atlantic, said in a statement Friday. “The judge’s ruling today shows that the president can not just trample on the constitution to do the bidding of his cronies in the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our oceans, wildlife, and climate.”

The Interior Department could not be immediately reached for comment.

In her Friday ruling, Gleason wrote that the law in which Congress gave the president authority over offshore drilling — the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act — expressly allows for leasing withdrawals but does not state that a subsequent president can revoke those withdrawals without congressional approval.

“As a result, the previous three withdrawals issued on January 27, 2015 and December 20, 2016 will remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked by Congress,” she wrote.

In a separate decision earlier in the day, Gleason found that then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke did not provide sufficient justification for reversing the government’s stance on whether to allow a small, remote Alaska town to construct a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.

Residents of King Cove have argued for years that they need to bisect the refuge, which has been protected for decades and provides a critical rest stop for migratory waterfowl, to ease medical situations under rough weather. Opponents counter that the federal government has provided millions in funding to provide town residents with alternative forms of transport, and that a road would fragment critical habitat.

“Here, the Secretary’s failure to acknowledge the change in agency policy and his failure to provide a reasoned explanation for that change in policy are serious errors,” Gleason wrote.

The third adverse decision the administration received this week came in a ruling from U.S. District Judge Lewis T. Babcock, a Ronald Reagan appointee. A coalition of environmental groups had challenged adjacent plans to drill a total of 171 wells in Colorado’s North Fork Valley, which provides key habitat for elk and mule deer.
Multiple environmentalists groups file a lawsuit to stop the US Forest Service from opening up large tracts of the Tongass National Forest to logging, allegedly without a proper study of the environmental impact.