Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
645 F.3d 978
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- SWEPCO planned the John W. Turk, Jr. 600 MW ultrasupercritical coal plant in Hempstead County, Arkansas, near Hunting Club property and Grassy Lake.
- SWEPCO sought a §404 permit to discharge dredged/fill material for wetlands and stream impacts and transmission line work; construction began before permit approval.
- The Corps issued a final §404 permit in December 2009 after a new survey and Arkansas court decisions invalidated SWEPCO's state certificate; a separate permit decision claimed the project met the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative and a FONSI.
- Plaintiffs (Sierra Club, Audubon groups, Mills, Hunting Club) challenged NEPA, CWA, ESA compliance and Arkansas law, seeking injunctive relief; district court granted limited injunctions enjoining specific §404 activities.
- SWEPCO appealed, arguing lack of standing and abuse of discretion; district court’s injunction remained in effect pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of plaintiffs | Hunting Club has injury in fact from NEPA and habitat impacts; Sierra Club and associations have nearby environmental interests. | Standing requires injury tied to §404 activities on site; many harms are too distant or speculative. | District court properly found standing for Hunting Club and Sierra Club members. |
| Likelihood of success on the merits (NEPA claims) | Corps failed to analyze alternatives and cumulative impacts; NEPA violation supports injunctive relief. | Discretion in NEPA review; select alternatives with adequate consideration. | Evidence supports likelihood of success on NEPA claims, including failures to analyze alternatives and cumulative effects. |
| Likelihood of success on the merits (ESA and related analyses) | Corps/FWS inadequately analyzed impacts on endangered species (interior least tern, Ouachita pocketbook mussel). | Agency analyses were sufficient and within discretion. | Sufficient likelihood of success on ESA-related claims based on inadequate analysis of indirect/environmental impacts. |
| Irreparable harm and balance of harms | NEPA/ESA violations cause irreparable environmental and aesthetic harms; environmental harms cannot be fully remedied by money. | Injunctive relief would impose substantial costs and delay reliability of electricity. | Irreparable environmental harm shown; balance of harms favors injunction. |
| Public interest | Public interest in enforcing environmental laws and agency compliance outweighs economic costs. | Public interest favors timely plant completion and jobs; injunction undermines reliability. | Public interest weighs in favor of maintaining injunction to ensure lawful agency action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (likelihood of irreparable harm required for preliminary relief)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements essential to federal cases)
- Marsh v. U.S. Air Force, 872 F.2d 496 (1st Cir. 1989) (NEPA harm includes failure to foresee environmental consequences)
- Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2002) (NEPA cumulative impacts and agency analysis failures)
- Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA failure of analysis supports injunctive relief)