Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the fate of the Frank J. Wood Bridge, a historic bridge in Maine connecting Topsham and Brunswick. Built in 1932, the bridge is no longer safe without substantial rehabilitation or replacement. The Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) decided that replacing the bridge was more sensible than rehabilitating it. Since federal funds would be used, MDOT needed approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and compliance with federal statutes, including Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, due to the bridge's historic status.The FHWA approved MDOT's plan to replace the bridge, despite objections from preservation groups. The plaintiffs challenged this decision in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, which rejected their challenges. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the FHWA's decision in part, remanding the case to determine whether a 53% price differential between rehabilitation and replacement constituted a cost of extraordinary magnitude under Section 4(f).On remand, the FHWA concluded that the 53% differential was indeed a cost of extraordinary magnitude. Plaintiffs argued that updated cost estimates showed that rehabilitation would now be cheaper than replacement. The FHWA, however, found the plaintiffs' updated estimates flawed and did not recalculate the differential. The plaintiffs then sued again, and the district court granted summary judgment for the agencies, finding that the FHWA had complied with the remand instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the FHWA acted within the scope of the remand by deciding whether the 53% price differential was a cost of extraordinary magnitude and was not required to reopen the record to consider new cost information. View "National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Buttigieg" on Justia Law

The case involves the approval process for a large-scale commercial offshore wind energy facility located on the Outer Continental Shelf, fourteen miles south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The plaintiffs, consisting of commercial fishing entities and a nonprofit organization, challenged the federal government's approval of the project, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included various federal departments and agencies, as well as the business entity responsible for the wind project. The court found that the plaintiffs' ESA claims were non-justiciable due to lack of standing and mootness, as the initial biological opinion had been superseded by a new one. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs were outside the zone of interests protected by the NEPA and the MMPA, and that the Alliance had failed to show that the Corps' issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit was arbitrary or capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's rulings de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgments, agreeing that the plaintiffs lacked standing for their ESA claims and that the claims were moot. The court also upheld the district court's zone-of-interests rulings regarding the NEPA and MMPA claims. Additionally, the court found that the Corps' decision to issue the CWA permit was not arbitrary or capricious and that the BOEM's approval of the project under the OCSLA was lawful. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs' arguments did not demonstrate that the BOEM had acted arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the project. View "Seafreeze Shoreside, Inc. v. Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

The case involves a family from Guatemala who entered the United States without valid entry documents and were served with Notices to Appear, charging them with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The father, Roni Cruz Galicia, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, with his wife and child as derivative beneficiaries. Cruz claimed that they were members of a particular social group ("PSG") defined as "climate refugees," having fled Guatemala due to severe environmental conditions and the government's inadequate response.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Cruz's testimony credible but rejected his asylum claim. The IJ determined that Cruz did not experience sufficient harm in Guatemala to constitute past persecution, the asserted PSG of "climate refugees" was not legally cognizable, and Cruz's fear of poor conditions in his home country did not constitute a well-founded fear of future persecution. Cruz appealed the IJ's asylum ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed the IJ's decision.In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Cruz argued that his asserted PSG of "climate refugees" was legally cognizable and that he had experienced past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution due to his membership in the PSG. The court found no error in the determination that Cruz failed to show that his asserted PSG is legally cognizable. The court also rejected Cruz's argument that the BIA erred by affirming the denial of his asylum claim summarily and without a written opinion. The court denied the petition. View "Cruz Galicia v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the construction of an offshore wind project aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The project, proposed by Vineyard Wind 1, LLC, was expected to provide energy sufficient to power 400,000 Massachusetts homes. However, residents of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket opposed the project, arguing that federal agencies failed to properly assess the potential impact of the project on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had granted summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Vineyard Wind, rejecting the residents' challenge to a biological opinion issued by the NMFS and relied on by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in permitting the construction of the wind power project.In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the residents challenged the lower court's decision, arguing that the NMFS's determination that the incidental harassment of up to twenty right whales constituted a "small number" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. They also argued that NMFS's consideration of the "specified activity" and the "specific geographic region" within which that activity would occur for purposes of issuing the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Vineyard Wind was impermissibly narrow in scope.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the NMFS's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and that it had properly delineated the "specific geographic region" for the purposes of the IHA. The court also found that the residents' concerns about the broader effect of the project on the right whale population were unwarranted, as the agency had considered the impact on the entire right whale population in its "negligible impact" analysis, its biological opinion, and in its participation in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Environmental Impact Statement. View "Melone v. Coit" on Justia Law

A group of Nantucket residents, organized as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, challenged the approval of the Vineyard Wind project by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The project involves the construction of a wind power facility off the coast of Massachusetts. The residents alleged that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. They also claimed that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on a flawed analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. The court found that NMFS and BOEM had followed the law in analyzing the right whale's current status and environmental baseline, the likely effects of the Vineyard Wind project on the right whale, and the efficacy of measures to mitigate those effects. The court also found that the agencies' analyses rationally supported their conclusion that Vineyard Wind would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the law and that the federal agencies had not violated the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The court concluded that the agencies' analyses were rational and that their conclusion that the Vineyard Wind project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale was supported by the evidence. View "Nantucket Residents Against Turbines v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management" on Justia Law

In this case, the Town of Milton, Massachusetts, petitioned for a judicial review of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) final order authorizing a new flight procedure at Boston's Logan International Airport. The new procedure, aimed at increasing safety and efficiency, covers a narrower swath of airspace over the Town of Milton. The Town argued that the FAA's environmental analysis of the noise impacts failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit dismissed the Town's petition, ruling that the Town does not have standing to challenge the FAA's final order. The court concluded that the harms the Town asserted, including the impact of noise on its residents and the time and money spent addressing these issues, were not legally cognizable harms to the Town itself. The court agreed with other courts of appeals that have dismissed municipal NEPA challenges to FAA orders for lack of Article III standing because those challenges failed to show cognizable injury to the municipalities themselves. View "Milton, MA v. FAA" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petition objecting to a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and affirmed by the Environmental Appeals Board requiring General Electric Company (GE) to clean up polychlorinated biphenyls from certain portions of the Housatonic River, holding that the EPA's challenged actions were not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, Petitioners brought three substantive challenges and also brought procedural challenges to the permit's issuance. The First Circuit denied the petition after noting that should GE's cleanup of the river not achieve the goals set out in the permit, the permit requires further measures, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to relief on their procedural and substantive legal challenges. View "Housatonic River Initiative v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

In this climate-change case, the First Circuit once more affirmed the order of the federal district court allowing Rhode Island's motion to return to state court its state court complaint against oil and gas companies for damages caused by fossil fuels, holding that Rhode Island's complaint did not give rise to federal removal jurisdiction.Rhode Island originally brought this complaint in state court, alleging state-law causes of action for, inter alia, public nuisance. After the energy companies removed the case to federal district court Rhode Island moved for the case to be remanded to state court. The district court granted the motion and ordered the case remanded to state court. The First Circuit affirmed the remand order. On certiorari, the Supreme Court instructed that the First Circuit give further consideration in light of recent caselaw. The First Circuit received supplemental briefs and then affirmed once more the judge's remand order, holding that removal based on federal-question jurisdiction and on other jurisdictional and removal statutes was not proper. View "State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the grant of summary judgment against Blackstone Headwaters Coalition in this citizen suit brought against various defendants involved in the development of a construction site, holding that North and South Rivers Watershed Ass'n v. Town of Scituate, 949 F.2d 552 (1st Cir. 1991), construed the scope of 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(6)(A)'s limitation on citizen suits too broadly.In Scituate, a First Circuit panel held that the limitation on citizen suits established by 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(6)(A) precludes a citizen suit that seeks to obtain declaratory or prospective injunctive relief from a violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. In the instant case, a panel of the Court relied on Scituate to affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment against Blackstone. The Court then reconsidered its decision in Scituate, vacated the panel opinion in this case, and reversed the grant of summary judgment in part, holding that, contrary to Scituate, the limitation set forth in section 1319(g)(6)(A) bars only a citizen suit that seeks to apply a civil penalty for an ongoing violation of the CWA and does not bar a citizen suit for declaratory and prospective injunction relief to redress an ongoing violation of the CWA. View "Blackstone Headwaters Coalition v. Gallo Builders, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court entering three separate judgment opinions and orders against Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) in this action brought by the United States seeking to recover response costs associated with the cleanup of the Maunabo Area Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, holding that the district court did not err.The United States brought this action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., against PRIDCO, as a potentially responsible party. PRIDCO owned property on the Site that contained elevated levels of hazardous substances in the groundwater that were found downgradient in a public drinking water well. In its orders against PRIDCO, the district court found, inter alia, that the United States had established its prima facie case against PRIDCO for liability under CERCLA and that PRIDCO was liable for $5.5 million in past response costs and would be liable for additional response costs reasonably incurred by the United States. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the entry of summary judgment and award of response costs was not error. View "United States v. Puerto Rico Industrial Development Co." on Justia Law