Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Haaland

–

The federal district court for the District of Alaska declined to reconsider its order remanding without vacatur challenges to a mining access road project in the Brooks Range in Alaska. The court did, however, order federal defendants to provide notice of applications and authorizations for activities on federal lands and notice in advance of any ground-disturbing activities.

–

–

–

The federal district court for the District of Alaska granted federal defendants’ motion for voluntary remand without vacatur of challenges to a road project in the Brooks Range in Alaska. The court found that remand was appropriate because the defendants had committed to taking further action with respect to challenged agency decisions, the potential issues identified by the federal defendants were “substantial and legitimate,” and there was no indication the federal defendants were acting in bad faith. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that it could not remand the case because the federal defendants did not commit to addressing each of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court ordered the remand without vacatur both because it was not convinced it had authority to vacate the challenged actions absent a determination on the merits and also because the court found vacatur was not necessary to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs and harm to the environment during the remand period. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the court at least allow them to proceed with claims against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

–

–

–

Federal defendants requested voluntary remand without vacatur in two cases challenging authorization of a 211-mile mining access road in Alaska. The defendants said “[a]dditional scrutiny” in the course of defending the merits of the case “has illuminated legal flaws that Defendants intend to reconsider through a further administrative process,” in particular consider of impacts to subsistence uses under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. The defendants also plan to supplement the NEPA analysis.

–

–