Sierra Club v. Salazar, 894 F. Supp. 2d 97

Sierra Club, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Friends of Blair Mountain, West Virginia Labor History Association, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy challenge removal of Blair Mountain Battlefield from the National Register under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Keeper removed Blair Mountain Battlefield from the National Register due to a counting error in owner objections to the nomination.
State WV Preservation Officer initially nominated Blair Mountain Battlefield in 2009 after prior unsuccessful nominations in 2005 and 2008.
Objections to nomination were gathered from property owners; later counts fluctuated as lists were revised and additional objections were identified.
National Register staff ultimately removed the property on the basis of a prejudicial procedural error, with automatic eligibility for inclusion upon removal.
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking reversal or reconsideration; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing.	Plaintiffs allege procedural injury elevates protection against surface mining and harms members personally.	Standing requires actual, imminent injury; alleged injuries are too speculative and depend on third-party actions.	Plaintiffs lack standing.
Whether injury-in-fact is concrete and imminent or speculative.	Removal increases risk of surface mining harming the Battlefield, affecting members' use and enjoyment.	Although mining permits exist, no imminent mining activity is proven; injury remains conjectural.	Injury-in-fact is not imminent or particularized; speculative.
Whether causation links the challenged action to alleged injury.	Keeper's removal directly influences mining risk; their actions cause injury to Battlefield resources.	Any mining risk depends on third-party mining decisions outside court's control.	Causation is not sufficiently shown; injury depends on third parties.
Whether redressability is satisfied given potential exemptions under mining statute.	Restore listing would redress injury by preventing mining implications.	Even if listed, valid existing rights exemptions could permit mining; redressability uncertain.	Redressability not satisfied; relief unlikely to redress injury.

Florida Audubon Soc’y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standing requires injury-in-fact beyond procedural violation)
Defenders of Wildlife v. Henderson, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (procedural injury cases relax imminence/redressability)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (standing for procedural challenges to agency actions)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (establishes standing requirements and injury-in-fact)
Grassroots Recycling Network v. EPA, 429 F.3d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standing when injury depends on third parties is difficult)
Wyoming Outdoor Council v. United States Forest Service, 165 F.3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (imminence can be shown in procedural rights context)
National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Manson, 414 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (environmental injury considerations in standing)
St. John’s United Church of Christ v. FAA, 520 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (lowered redressability standard applies when appropriate)
Simon v. East Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1976) (causation requirements in standing analyses)
Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (causation and standing under agency actions)