Steven Pollack v. DOJ

Aug 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 08-3857. The case involves a gun range that the United States government operates on the shores of Lake Michigan. The plaintiffs brought suit against several governmental agencies, alleging that the discharge of bullets into the lake violates various environmental laws. The district court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction after concluding the plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.

Plaintiff, Steven Pollack is an attorney who lives in Highland Park, Illinois, thirteen miles south of the range. He is the executive director of plaintiff Blue Eco Legal Council (Blue Eco), an environmental group “with an interest in the environmental safety of the Great Lakes watershed,” that, among other things, sues private and governmental polluters to enforce environmental laws.

To establish standing, the plaintiffs relied on affidavits submitted by Pollack and another Blue Eco member, Darren Miller, who is also a resident of Highland Park. Pollack’s affidavit stated that he enjoyed watching birds in the Great Lakes watershed, visited public parks along the Lake Michigan shoreline, drank water from Lake Michigan at his home in Highland Park, and ate freshwater and ocean fish. Miller’s affidavit was nearly identical to Pollack’s.

The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction saying that plaintiffs concern over drinking water did not provide standing because the drinking water in Highland Park was below the environmental limit on lead pollution allowed by the city government, thereby negating any claim of harm. Additionally, the district court held that expressed concerns over birds, fish, and wildlife were "too general and did not allege any particular or specific harm" that had been caused by the bullets at the gun range.

The Appeals Court concluded, "Because neither Pollack nor Miller has demonstrated that they were concretely affected by the shooting activities they challenge, neither individual has standing to pursue this case. Accordingly, neither Pollack nor Blue Eco has standing. The district court’s dismissal of this suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed."

In a separate concurring opinion, one Judge wrote, "This is without question a close case. As the case law laid out by the majority suggests, 'injury in fact' can be an elusive phenomenon. Although in the present case an injury is arguably traceable to the deposit of toxic substances in potable water, such phenomena appear and disappear from one case to the next depending on subtle twists in the allegations, turning between the real and the hypothetical."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Mirant Potomac River, LLC v. EPA

Aug 12: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 08-1277. The Appeals Court explained that Mirant Potomac River, LLC (Mirant) appealed the U.S. EPA approval of Virginia’s Clean Air Interstate Rule State Implementation Plan (CAIR SIP). The Court said Mirant’s alleged injury, however, "flows from Virginia’s Nonattainment Provisions, which are separate emissions standards adopted by Virginia’s Air Pollution Control Board (Virginia Board) under the authority of the Virginia legislature. Because Mirant’s injury cannot fairly be traced to EPA’s approval of Virginia’s CAIR SIP, we dismiss for lack of standing."

The Appeals Court also noted in a footnote, "Since we find no subject matter jurisdiction, we need not evaluate a recent decision by Virginia’s Court of Appeals that invalidated a portion of the Nonattainment Provisions. . . Mirant Potomac River, LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia, State Air Pollution Control Board, 2009 WL 1748524 (Va. Ct. App. June 23, 2009) (unpublished)."

In summary the Appeals Court ruled, ". . .there is no connection -- much less one that is 'fairly traceable' -- between Mirant’s claimed injury and EPA’s approval of Virginia’s CAIR SIP because Virginia’s Nonattainment Provisions and its CAIR SIP are separate regulatory schemes. Virginia’s Nonattainment Provisions are state regulations. They are not part of, and do not directly interfere with, the CAIR SIP approved by EPA. Consequently, Mirant has failed to demonstrate a causal link between its alleged injury and EPA’s approval of Virginia’s CAIR SIP. Mirant has failed to carry its burden of establishing standing."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

People of the State of CA v. USDA (Roadless Rule)

Aug 5: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-15613 & 07-15695. As explained by the Appeals Court, this case involves procedural challenges to a United States Forest Service Rule known as the "State Petitions Rule." The plaintiffs, several states and various environmentalist organizations, contend that the State Petitions Rule was promulgated without proper process and that it is invalid. They urge us to affirm the district court, which set aside the State Petitions Rule and reinstated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, more commonly known as the “Roadless Rule,” pending Forest Service compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

The Appeals Court said, "We agree with the plaintiffs that the promulgation of the State Petitions Rule effected a repeal of the Roadless Rule, which we previously found to afford greater protections to the nation’s roadless areas than those the individual forest plans provide. The Forest Service’s use of a categorical exemption to repeal the nationwide protections of the Roadless Rule and to invite States to pursue varying rules for roadless area management was unreasonable. It was likewise unreasonable for the Forest Service to assert that the environment, listed species, and their critical habitats would be unaffected by this regulatory change. We affirm the district court’s order permanently enjoining the implementation of the State Petitions Rule because the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act when it promulgated the State Petitions Rule. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Forest Service to comply with the Roadless Rule as a remedy for these procedural shortcomings."

In it decision, the Ninth Circuit provides an overview of the factual background and procedural history of this lengthy litigation. Additionally, the Court also resolve disputes about the ripeness of the plaintiffs’ claims and the appropriate standard of review to apply to them.

Earthjustice, a party in the case issued a statement saying, "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed protection for over 40 million acres of wild national forests and grasslands from new road building, logging, and development. The decision puts an end to the Bush administration's efforts to open these last great natural areas to development. Today's ruling protects the majority of national forest roadless areas in the country. . . Today's ruling not only affirms and reinstates the most popular environmental rule of all time, it frees the Obama administration to pursue President Obama's pledge to 'support and defend' the 2001 Rule -- including appealing an adverse ruling from a Wyoming federal court, ending the roadless protection exemption for the Tongass National Forest, and refraining from enacting specific state legislation, like that proposed in Colorado."

Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said, "We're not out of the woods yet. This decision halts the Bush administration assault on roadless areas, but the Obama administration should now take the next steps necessary to make protection permanent." On May 28, 2009, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the signing of an interim directive regarding inventoried roadless areas within the National Forests and Grasslands. At the time Vilsack said, "This interim directive will provide consistency and clarity that will help protect our national forests until a long-term roadless policy reflecting President Obama's commitment is developed." The directive provided decision-making authority to the Secretary over proposed forest management or road construction projects in inventoried roadless areas [See WIMS 5/29/09].

USDA indicated at the time, "In simultaneously upholding and overturning the 2001 Clinton roadless rule, the courts have created confusion and made it difficult for the U.S. Forest Service to do its job. The directive will ensure that USDA can carefully consider activities in these inventoried roadless areas while long term roadless policy is developed and relevant court cases move forward."

Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the release from Earthjustice (click here). Access the 1-page USDA Interim Directive (click here). Access the USDA Roadless Area Conservation website for more information (click here). Access the Heritage Forests Campaign website for extensive information and background on roadless areas (click here).

Simsbury-Avon Pres. Society v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc.

Jul 31: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 07-0795. Plaintiffs-Appellants (Simsbury-Avon) brought suit against Defendants-Appellees Metacon Gun Club, Inc., and its members and guests (collectively referred to as Metacon) for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, and the Clean Water Act (CWA), resulting from the discharge and accumulation of lead shot on Metacon’s property. Plaintiffs-Appellants now appeal from several decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, dismissing their claims.

The Appeals Court said, "We defer to the EPA’s interpretation of the applicable RCRA permit regulations, and hold that they do not apply to the regular, intended use of lead shot on a shooting range. Therefore, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claim based on the alleged disposal of hazardous waste without a RCRA permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a). We also hold that the Plaintiffs-Appellants have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding whether lead contamination on the shooting range constitutes 'an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.' 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Metacon on Plaintiffs-Appellants’ RCRA 'imminent and substantial endangerment' claim. Finally, we hold that the Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to set forth sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact as to whether the gun club is discharging lead shot into 'navigable waters' from a 'point source.' 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Metacon on Plaintiffs-Appellants’ CWA permit claim."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

Public Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Jun 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-71868 & 07-72555. Petitioners Public Citizen, Inc., San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace, the State of New York, and amicus State of California (Petitioners) challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC or Commission) modification of the Design Basis Threat (DBT) rule and partial denial of the Committee to Bridge the Gap’s (CBG) petition for rulemaking. Petitioners claim the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law by refusing to include the threat of air attacks in the final revised DBT rule. Petitioners also claim NRC violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not considering the risk of an airborne terrorist attack in its Environmental Assessment (EA), and that this risk creates a potentially significant impact on the environment necessitating a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In a split, 2-1 decision, the Appeals Court denied the petition.

In denying the petition, the majority said in part, "Because the Commission acted within its discretion in concluding that air-based threats were beyond the scope of the DBT rule, however, it was unnecessary for the Commission to consider that decision as an alternative course within the scope of the rule. The Commission’s determination that air-based threats were outside the scope of the DBT rule distinguishes this case from a case like Center for Biological Diversity [538 F.3d at 1215], where we held an agency must consider a broad range of alternative actions within the scope of the rule at issue, beyond those alternatives the agency seriously considered. We decline to extend that holding to create a rule that ignores reasonable boundaries in the scope of an EA alternative action analysis. The Commission did not merely select among a range of options, but instead determined air-based threats were not properly addressed by the DBT rule. As noted above, this decision was within the Commission’s discretion and it need not include an analysis of airbased threats within the EA alternative action section."

The dissenting opinion states in conclusion, "Although we owe the NRC considerable deference, the NRC owes the public a rational and reasonable explanation why it would exclude from its rule consideration of terrorist air attacks on nuclear facilities. In the face of near-uniform scientific studies warning of serious risk, bare assurances by the NRC that we are safe do not satisfy this minimal agency burden."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

WildEarth Guardians v. US Forest Service

Jul 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 09-1089. The appellant, Mountain Coal Company (MCC), owns and operates the West Elk Mine, a large underground coal mine lying beneath the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests in Colorado. After the United States Forest Service approved plans for venting methane gas from the mine, WildEarth Guardians brought suit against the Forest Service, the Department of Interior, and several of their officials under the Administrative Procedure Act, contending that the approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). MCC moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.

The district court denied the motion and MCC appealed. Because “[a]n order denying intervention is final and subject to immediate review if it prevents the applicant from becoming a party to an action,” Coalition of Ariz./N.M. Counties for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dep’t of the Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1996) (Coalition). The Appeals Court concluded that MCC is entitled to intervene as of right, and accordingly reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant MCC’s motion to intervene.

The Appeals Court ruled, "We are convinced that MCC has established a possibility of inadequate representation. . . the government has multiple objectives and could well decide to embrace some of the environmental goals of WildEarth. Therefore, MCC should not be required to rely on the defendants to represent its interests."

Access the complete opinion (click here).

River Runners For Wilderness v. Martin

Jul 21: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 08-15112. The National Park Service entered a decision adopting a 2006 Colorado River Management Plan that the Plaintiff-Appellants contend is unlawful. Plaintiffs sought to have that decision set aside by the district court as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants (i.e. Superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, National Park Service, Department of Interior, et al).

The Appeals Court said, "The district court wrote an extensive and well-reasoned order, which is attached as an appendix. We agree with the order and adopt it as the opinion of our court." In its decision the district court explained that the case concerns the National Parks Service’s decision to permit the continued use of motorized rafts and support equipment in Grand Canyon National Park. Plaintiffs contended that such motorized activities impair the wilderness character of the Canyon and that the Park Service’s decision violates its management policies and various federal statutes. The district court ruled that for reasons which it explains in its order that, "Plaintiffs have not satisfied the high threshold required to set aside federal agency actions under the APA."

Access the complete opinion (click here).