National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
170 F. Supp. 3d 6
D.D.C.2016Background
- Conservation groups sue the Army Corps over Nationwide Permit 13 (NWP 13) reissuance authorizing bank stabilization projects under the CWA, NEPA, ESA, and APA.
- Plaintiffs allege the Corps failed to adequately analyze environmental impacts and to consult under the ESA prior to issuing NWP 13.
- NWP 13 is a general permit allowing broad bank stabilization activities; the Corps estimated about 17,500 projects 2012–2017 under the permit.
- The Bull River bulkhead on the Savannah River Basin is a key example cited by plaintiffs as harm caused by NWP 13.
- The Court considers whether the conservation groups have Article III standing; if not, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court ultimately grants summary judgment for the Corps on the basis of lack of standing, dismissing the action without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do NEPA/CWA claims have standing? | Scott's declaration shows ongoing recreational harm in Savannah River basin. | Summers framework requires site-specific imminent injury; generalized or future harms are insufficient. | No standing for NEPA/CWA due to lack of redressable injury from future bulkheads. |
| Does ESA claim confer standing? | Alleged failure to consult harms endangered species and their habitats. | Plaintiffs lack direct injury; actions not tied to a specific impacted site. | No standing for ESA claim; no direct substantial injury shown. |
| Is there a procedural-injury basis for standing under NEPA/CWA? | Procedural failings in NEPA/404(b)(1) analysis could support standing. | Procedural injuries must be tethered to concrete, redressable harms; here they are not redressable. | Redressability lacking; no standing based on procedural injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes three-part standing test)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (requires area-specific, imminent injury for standing)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (procedural injuries require concrete adverse effect)
- In re: Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d 502 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (analyze redressability of procedural injuries by looking to substantive relief)
- Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Sebelius, 746 F.3d 468 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (assessing redressability of procedural injury)
- Florida Audubon Soc’y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (relaxed redressability for procedural rights, but not erased)