Mingo Logan Coal Company, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138026
D.D.C.2014Background
- Mingo Logan Coal Company challenged EPA's 2010 Final Determination withdrawing disposal-site specifications for Spruce No. 1 Mine’s 404 permit.
- Corps issued a section 404 permit for disposal of dredged/fill material; EPA later invoked 404(c) veto authority to withdraw two disposal-site specifications.
- EPA had repeatedly expressed environmental concerns during the long permit process (1998–2011), including impact on water quality and habitat.
- The D.C. Circuit held EPA could veto post-permit specifications; this case proceeded on remaining APA claims seeking review of EPA’s Final Determination.
- EPA’s Final Determination rested on V.C. (unacceptable wildlife impacts within footprint) and V.D. (downstream impacts) with mitigation considerations discussed in V.E.
- The court granted EPA summary judgment, finding EPA’s post-permit veto reasonable, within EPA’s authority, and supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA may veto after permit issuance under §404(c). | Mingo Logan contends post-permit veto is unlawful or improper. | EPA may veto post-permit disposal-site specifications under §404(c). | EPA's post-permit veto is permissible; final determination upheld. |
| Whether EPA may consider downstream effects when evaluating §404 discharges. | Downstream effects fall under §402/State authority, not §404(c). | EPA may assess downstream wildlife impacts as part of §404(c) analysis. | EPA properly considered downstream effects and linked them to §404 discharges. |
| Whether EPA must defer to state water-quality standards or may apply stricter standards. | EPA cannot exceed West Virginia’s water-quality standards under §404(c). | EPA may apply stricter standards when evaluating wildlife impacts under §404(c). | EPA may apply broader considerations beyond state standards; may impose stricter environmental protections. |
| Whether EPA was required to rely on substantial new information to justify the post-permit veto. | Substantial new information is required to support post-permit action. | No explicit requirement for substantial new information; policy and record support the decision. | Substantial new information not required; EPA’s rationale and record support the Final Determination. |
| EPA’s consideration of mitigation requirements in the permit and related estoppel concerns. | EPA is bound by prior mitigation and cannot challenge it; estoppel applies. | EPA may re-evaluate mitigation under §404(c); estoppel does not apply to the government. | EPA properly considered mitigation; judicial estoppel does not bar EPA’s challenge; deferential review applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard; required rational connection to facts)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)
- Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2009) (distinction between §402 and §404; permit regimes)
- Newport Galleria Grp. v. DeLand, 618 F. Supp. 1179 (D.D.C. 1985) (§404(c) veto requires ability to disagree with Corps conclusions)
- Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (Alliance II), 606 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2009) (deference in technical/scientific agency determinations)
- Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009) (scope of §404/§402 regulatory interplay)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (defers to agency on technical/environmental matters)
- Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 556 U.S. 502 (U.S. 2009) (reasoned analysis required for policy changes; changed agency positions)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (summary-judgment standards; deference to agencies)
- Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (APA review of agency decisions; finality concerns)