Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

This case involved the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) removal of the Yellowstone grizzly bear from the threatened species list. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Service failed to articulate a rational connection between the data in the record and its determination that whitebark pine declines were not a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly, given the lack of data indicating grizzly population stability in the face of such declines, and the substantial data indicating a direct correlation between whitebark pine seed availability and grizzly survival production. The court held, however, that the Service's determination regarding the adequacy of the existing regulatory mechanisms was reasonable and reversed the district court.

The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (League) and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) appealed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order that allowed Respondent Kiawah Development Partners to construct erosion control devices in a critical zone on Captain Sam's Spit (Spit). Respondent owend a peninsula (Spit) which lies primarily south of Kiawah Island, surrounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean, Kiawah River and Captain Sam's Inlet which separates the Spit from Seabrook Island. For the past sixty years, the Spit has been "growing," accreting sand on the ocean side at a greater rate than it has been losing ground to erosion on the river side. Respondent leased oceanfront property near the neck to the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission, which operates Beachwalker Park there. Respondent sought a permit from DHEC to erect a 2,783 foot bulkhead/revetment combination along the Kiawah River, with the structure to begin at the neck, that is, at Beachwalker Park. DHEC authorized construction of the proposed erosion control device for 270 feet, beginning at Beachwalker Park, and denied the remaining portion of the request. Both the League and Respondent requested a contested case hearing before the ALJ, the League to protest the portion of the permit request which was granted, and Respondent to challenge the portion denied. The Appellants contended the ALJ failed to give the deference due DHEC's interpretation of the statutes and regulations, and further that he exceeded his authority in rewriting the permit, resulting in one with terms neither approved by DHEC nor sought by Respondent. Upon review of the ALJ's ruling and the applicable legal standards, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding the ALJ's decision was "affected by numerous errors of law … beginning with the ALJ's misunderstanding of the applicable statutes, regulations, and public policies, and concluding with his erroneous effort to craft a new permit, one which has never been sought by respondent, nor reviewed by OCRM, and which he, in any case, lack[ed] the authority to issue."

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Revett Silver Company in an action brought pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), which required federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before undertaking any action "authorized, funded, or carried out" by the agency that might "jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat" used by any endangered or threatened species. The court held that the Fish and Wildlife Service's determination that a copper and silver mine in northwest Montana would entail "no adverse modification" to bull trout critical habitat and would result in "no jeopardy" to grizzly bears was not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.

The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint, concluding in relevant part that plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies for their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., claim and that the Norbeck Wildlife Project was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the Norbeck Organic Act (NOA), 16 U.S.C. 675. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that defendants violated NEPA and NOA by approving the project. The court held that because the court determined that plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies, it did not reach additional arguments raised by defendants and intervenors. The court also held that defendants' decision to approve the project was neither arbitrary nor capricious because defendants considered the direct and indirect effects of the project on the preserve's focus species, the management indicator species for the Black Hills National Forest, and species of local concern; defendants considered the habitat needs of various game animals and birds as well as the effects of the burning and logging activities; the district ranger adjusted the parameters of the approved project to try to mitigate the adverse impact on game animals and birds; and defendants seriously considered the no action alternative and provided ample explanation for why that option was inadequate.

Appellees, record owners of surface property, brought an equitable action pursuant to Nebraska's dormant mineral statutes, claiming the property's severed mineral interests had been abandoned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 57-229 and seeking an order vesting title to all several mineral rights in them. The district court entered an order finding Appellants, the owners of the severed mineral rights, had abandoned the mineral interests under section 57-229 because for more than twenty-three years preceding the filing of the complaint, Appellants had not publicly exercised rights of ownership. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Nebraska's dormant mineral statutes were not applied retroactively to Appellants and the district court did not err in determining that those interests had been abandoned under the provisions of section 57-229.

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Charles Stephens and Stephens Properties, Inc. appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Fines Recycling, Inc. and its shareholders on claims stemming from a dispute over a commercial lease. Fines operated an scrap metal recycling business on Stephens' property. The State sent Fines a notice that it was illegally operating a solid waste dump on the property, and demanded the company cease operations until the waste was cleaned up. The shareholders pledged their stock to Stephens Properties as security for Fines' obligation to clean up the property. Following the completion of the cleanup, Stephens allegedly failed to return the stock certificates pledged by the Fines shareholders. The shareholders sued for the stocks' return; Stephens responded that the stock was subsequently used as a setoff for payment of back rent and other expenses relating to the cleanup. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court purported to certify its judgment as final, but that there were still pending counterclaims active in the case. The Court concluded that "the judgment on the jury verdict was not a final judgment, and, because of the nature of the pending issues, could not be transformed into a final judgment by a [final] certification." The Court reversed the trial court's certification and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ark Initiative, Alex Forsythe, and Paul Smith appealed a district court's judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees, the U.S. Forest Service and its Chief. The district court upheld the Defendants' acceptance of a 2003 Master Development Plan (MDP), as well as a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, and decisions concerning a 2006 Snowmass Ski Improvements Project. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants violated NEPA by approving the project without examining certain cumulative effects-- namely, effects on water resources, endangered fish, forest habitats, and "other resources." Defendants countered that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their claims, and that the NEPA does not require a federal agency to examine the cumulative effects of its proposed action with those of an unrelated proposal where the proposed action will not affect the resource concerns pressed by the Plaintiffs. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

NorthWestern Energy proposed constructing an electric transmission line from Montana to Idaho and submitted its application for a certificate from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). While preparing a draft of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Jefferson County informed DEQ that it expected DEQ to consult with the County in determining the route. Jefferson County subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus and injunction relief against DEQ, (1) seeking an order requiring DEQ to comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act and other environmental legislation, and (2) requesting DEQ be enjoined from releasing a draft EIS. NorthWestern subsequently intervened. The district court ruled in favor of Jefferson County after determining that DEQ had not satisfied its duty to consult with Jefferson County under Mont. Code Ann. 75-1-201(1)(c) and enjoined DEP from releasing the Draft EIS until it had done so. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) at this stage in the process, DEQ had not violated a clear legal duty to consult with the County prior to issuing its draft EIS; and (2) because the County had adequate legal remedies once DEQ rendered a final agency action, the County was not entitled to mandamus or injunctive relief.

The four-acre parcel is within the watershed of the Sawmill, which flows into the Smyrna River, then into the Delaware Estuary and to Delaware Bay. The Sawmill becomes tidal 2.5 miles from the property. In 1987, the Army Corps of Engineers categorized the site as wetlands, concluded that ¾ of an acre had been filled, and warned the owner that a permit was required to fill more than one acre. In 1993, the Corps found that he had continued to fill without a permit and ordered removal of 0.771 acres of fill or submission of a pre-discharge notification. In 1996, the government sued, under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). In 2006, the court entered judgment, imposing a $250,000 fine and requiring removal of 0.771 acres of fill. The Third Circuit remanded, in light of the 2006 Supreme Court decision, Rapanos v. U.S. On remand, the government presented expert evidence; the owner submitted an affidavit based on personal knowledge. The court granted the government summary judgment. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Corps has jurisdiction only over wetlands adjacent to navigable-in-fact waters. There is no genuine issue of Corps' jurisdiction; nothing in the affidavit addressed the effect on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters.

Three environmental organizations petitioned for review of the EPA's promulgation of a final rule where the "conformity determinations" referred to in the rule's title were approvals needed under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), for federally funded transportation projects in an area that was designated "nonattainment" or "maintenance" with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Petitioners principally argued that the 2010 Rule still failed to embody subsection (B)(iii)'s requirements that the project not "delay timely attainment on any standard or any required interim emission reduction or milestones in any area." The court held that, given the EPA's clarification that (B)(iii) applied to local projects and its persuasive explanation of how the substance of the "delay" condition was met, the court was satisfied that the 2010 Rule was not arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with law for the reasons raised in Environmental Defense, Inc. v. EPA. In particular, it was clear that a project giving rise to the "counterbalance" hypothetical the court described in Environmental Defense would not be deemed conforming. Accordingly, the petition was denied.