283 F. Supp. 3d 982
W.D. Wash.2017Background
- Plaintiff Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA) sues EPA and NOAA under the APA and ESA, alleging failures in administering state nonpoint-source pollution programs for Washington under the Clean Water Act (CWA) §319 and the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments (CZARA).
- NWEA alleges six claims: (1) agencies failed to render a final approval/denial of Washington’s Coastal Nonpoint Program; (2–3) agencies failed to withhold required portions of CWA and Coastal Assistance Grants; (4) EPA arbitrarily approved Washington’s 2015 CWA Nonpoint Program update; (5) EPA improperly found Washington made "satisfactory progress" and awarded 2015–2016 grants; (6) EPA/NOAA failed to engage in required ESA §7 consultation for the above actions (four subclaims).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing) and for failure to state a claim on several counts.
- The court found NWEA adequately pleaded organizational and associational standing, including procedural injuries tied to statutory review, causation, and redressability (relaxed tests for procedural injuries).
- On the merits at dismissal stage, the court: dismissed with prejudice Claim 1 (no statutory duty to affirmatively disapprove a nonconforming Coastal Program); denied dismissal of Claims 2–5 (statutory withholding and §319 standards apply and agency action reviewable); and granted dismissal of the fourth subclaim of Claim 6 (withholding is nondiscretionary so §7 consultation not required) while denying dismissal of the other ESA subclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NWEA has standing to bring APA and ESA §7 claims | NWEA alleges procedural injury and concrete recreational/conservation harms traceable to agency inaction and reviewable by the court | Defendants argue causation/redressability fail because relief depends on state action (Washington) | Standing sustained for all claims; procedural-injury doctrine relaxes causation/redressability requirements |
| Whether agencies must affirmatively disapprove a nonconforming Coastal Nonpoint Program | CZARA requires approval if criteria met and thus agencies must issue a definitive disapproval when criteria not met | Agencies contend their conditional approvals are lawful and no categorical duty to disapprove exists | Claim 1 dismissed: statute does not mandate an affirmative disapproval, so relief cannot be granted |
| Whether agencies were required to withhold statutory grant amounts where Coastal Program not finally approved | CZARA plainly requires withholding when a program is not approved; agencies awarded grants without required reductions | Agencies treat conditional approval as final approval and argue withholding not required | Claims 2–3 survive: court finds withholding requirement nondiscretionary and agencies failed to withhold |
| Whether EPA's approval of Washington's 2015 CWA §319 update and its satisfactory-progress determinations were reviewable/valid and whether ESA §7 consultation was required | NWEA: the 2015 update is a "management program proposed for implementation" under §319, so it must meet §319 standards; EPA's progress determinations and grant awards required ESA consultation when EPA had discretion | Defendants: updates are not subject to §319 standards; progress determinations are retrospective and non-discretionary; consultation not required | Claims 4–5 survive (court holds §319 standards apply to the update and progress determinations are discretionary); ESA §7 subclaims mostly survive except the subclaim tied solely to mandatory withholding (fourth subclaim) which was dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (procedural and concrete-injury standing framework)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (procedural-injury doctrine and relaxed causation/redressability)
- Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.) (procedural injury and nexus to remedial effect)
- Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.) (ESA §7 consultation required when agency has discretion to influence action)
- Alaska Center for the Environment v. Browner, 20 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.) (state reliance does not necessarily defeat standing in CWA nonpoint-source context)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (discretionary enforcement decisions and APA reviewability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Sackett v. E.P.A., 566 U.S. 120 (APA jurisdiction to challenge agency failures)
- Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 698 F.3d 774 (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)