Case Law Oh Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal

Oh Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal

Document Cited Authorities (77) Cited in (853) Related

Robert G. McLusky, Jackson Kelly, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Michael Thomas Gray, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Joseph Mark Lovett, Appalachian Center for the Economy & The Environment, Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF:

James R. Snyder, Blair M. Gardner, Jackson Kelly, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Michael R. Shebelskie, William H. Wright, Jr., Hunton & Williams, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Intervenors/Appellants Aracoma Coal Company, Elk Run Coal Company, Alex Energy, Incorporated, Independence Coal Company, Incorporated; James S. Crockett, Jr., Allyn G. Turner, James C. Lesnett, Jr., Spilman Thomas & Battle, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant West Virginia Coal Association. Ronald J. Tenpas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellants United States Army Corps of Engineers, Robert L. Van Antwerp, Commander and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dana R. Hurst, District Engineer, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District. James M. Hecker, Public Justice, Washington, D.C.; Stephen E. Roady, Jennifer C. Chavez, Earthjustice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Karen Bennett, National Mining Association, Washington, D.C.; Christopher T. Handman, Dominic F. Perella, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Alabama Coal Association, Alaska Miners Association, Coal Operators and Associates, Incorporated, Colorado Mining Association, Idaho Mining Association, Illinois Coal Association, Indiana Coal Council, Kentucky Coal Association, National Mining Association, Ohio Coal Association, Pennsylvania Coal Association, Virginia Coal Association, Amici Supporting Appellants. James N. Christman, Brooks M. Smith, Hunton & Williams, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia; Kristy A.N. Bulleit, Hunton & Williams, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Utility Water Act Group, Amicus Supporting Appellants. William R. Valentino, Assistant Attorney General, West Virginia Attorney General's Office, Charleston, West Virginia; Thomas L. Clarke, Senior Counsel, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Legal Services, Charleston, West Virginia, for West Virginia Department of Commerce and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Amici Supporting Appellants.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Reversed, vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge SHEDD joined. Judge MICHAEL wrote a separate opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part.

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:

OPINION

This appeal concerns a challenge by Plaintiffs-Appellees Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Coal River Mountain Watch, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (hereinafter referred to collectively as "OVEC") to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") issuance of four permits allowing the filling of West Virginia stream waters in conjunction with area surface coal mining operations. Granting judgment for OVEC, the district court rescinded the permits as violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2000), the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (2000), and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2000). The court also enjoined all activity under those permits and remanded to the Corps for further proceedings consistent with its order.

Separately, in an order dated June 13, 2007, the district court provided declaratory relief to OVEC, holding that the stream segments linking the permitted fills to downstream sediment treatment ponds were "waters of the United States" and that the Corps lacked authority under the CWA to permit discharge from the fills into the stream segments.

The Corps now appeals these two orders. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and vacate the district court's opinion and order of March 23, 2007, and vacate the district court's injunction. We also reverse the district court's June 13, 2007, grant of declaratory relief and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

The mountaintop removal method of surface coal mining, pioneered in West Virginia, involves the blasting of the soil and rock atop a mountain to expose coal deposits below. While mining operations are ongoing, the overburden is hauled or pushed into adjacent valleys. This excavated overburden is known as "spoil." Once the coal has been extracted, efforts are made to re-contour the mountaintop by replacing the removed overburden, but stability concerns limit the amount of spoil that can be returned to the area. In its natural state, the spoil material is heavily compacted; once excavated, however, the loosening of the rock...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina – 2015
Forestwatch v. Lint, Civil Action No.: 8:12–CV–3455–BHH
"...REVIEW Judicial review of federal agency action is made available through the APA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 –706 ; Ohio Valley Envt'l Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 192 (4th Cir.2009). The party seeking review under the APA must show that he has "suffer[ed] legal wrong" because of the chal..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia – 2018
Sines v. Kessler
"...ascribed to these [statements]," it is appropriate for the Court to "decline to judicially notice them." Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co. , 556 F.3d 177, 216 (4th Cir. 2009).D. Unincorporated associations under Va. Code § 8.01–15 Multiple Defendants are sued as "unincorporated a..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia – 2009
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
"...and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED insofar as it is controlled by the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (2009) (Counts 6 & 7). However, it is DENIED with regard to Count 5, Plaintiffs' claim that the Corps failed to pro..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2010
Sierra Club v. Antwerp
"...the agency has considered those effects and determined that competing policy values outweigh those costs. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 191 (4th Cir.2009) (citing Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835.) Even if the court finds the contrary views more persu..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2020
City of Columbus v. Trump
"...and capricious standard "is not meant to reduce judicial review to a ‘rubber-stamp’ of agency action." Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co. , 556 F.3d 177, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). The reviewing court must "engage in a ‘searching and careful’ inquiry of the record." Id. (quoting Citizen..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Chapter 1 National Environmental Policy Act
§1.5 - NEPA Process
"...measures can support the issuance of a FONSI and the decision not to prepare an EIS. E.g., Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009) (upholding FONSI for fill of stream waters associated with coal mining); Spiller v. White, 352 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2003) (upho..."
Document | Vol. 52 Núm. 3, June 2022 – 2022
TEAR DOWN THIS WALL: ALIGNING THE CORPS' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OBLIGATIONS UNDER NEPA AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT FOR SECTION 404 WETLAND PERMITS.
"...Corps of Eng'rs, No. 07- CV-01170, 2008 WL 4833113 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 5, 2008). Ohio Valley Narrow Y N Env't Coal. v. Aracoma Coal, Inc., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009). D'Olive Bay Narrow Y N Restoration & Pres. Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 513 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Ala. 2007)..."
Document | Núm. 45-9, September 2015 – 2015
Federal Environmental Permitting of Offshore Aquaculture: Coverage and Challenges
"...but “full consideration and appropriate weight will be given to all comments”). 24. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 201 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts must generally defer to the agency evaluation because ‘an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opin..."
Document | Appendices – 2009
List of Case Citations
"...Corps, 2008 WL 2199369 (S.D. Ga. 2008) ......................................64 Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 39 ELR 20035 (4th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................. ...."
Document | Appendices – 2015
List of Case Citations
"...Coal. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 3-05:0784 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 23, 2007), rev’d , Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 39 ELR 20035 (4th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 62, 93, 124 Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. U.S. ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Chapter 1 National Environmental Policy Act
§1.5 - NEPA Process
"...measures can support the issuance of a FONSI and the decision not to prepare an EIS. E.g., Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009) (upholding FONSI for fill of stream waters associated with coal mining); Spiller v. White, 352 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2003) (upho..."
Document | Vol. 52 Núm. 3, June 2022 – 2022
TEAR DOWN THIS WALL: ALIGNING THE CORPS' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OBLIGATIONS UNDER NEPA AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT FOR SECTION 404 WETLAND PERMITS.
"...Corps of Eng'rs, No. 07- CV-01170, 2008 WL 4833113 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 5, 2008). Ohio Valley Narrow Y N Env't Coal. v. Aracoma Coal, Inc., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009). D'Olive Bay Narrow Y N Restoration & Pres. Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 513 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Ala. 2007)..."
Document | Núm. 45-9, September 2015 – 2015
Federal Environmental Permitting of Offshore Aquaculture: Coverage and Challenges
"...but “full consideration and appropriate weight will be given to all comments”). 24. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 201 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts must generally defer to the agency evaluation because ‘an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opin..."
Document | Appendices – 2009
List of Case Citations
"...Corps, 2008 WL 2199369 (S.D. Ga. 2008) ......................................64 Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 39 ELR 20035 (4th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................. ...."
Document | Appendices – 2015
List of Case Citations
"...Coal. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 3-05:0784 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 23, 2007), rev’d , Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 39 ELR 20035 (4th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 62, 93, 124 Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. U.S. ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina – 2015
Forestwatch v. Lint, Civil Action No.: 8:12–CV–3455–BHH
"...REVIEW Judicial review of federal agency action is made available through the APA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 –706 ; Ohio Valley Envt'l Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 192 (4th Cir.2009). The party seeking review under the APA must show that he has "suffer[ed] legal wrong" because of the chal..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia – 2018
Sines v. Kessler
"...ascribed to these [statements]," it is appropriate for the Court to "decline to judicially notice them." Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co. , 556 F.3d 177, 216 (4th Cir. 2009).D. Unincorporated associations under Va. Code § 8.01–15 Multiple Defendants are sued as "unincorporated a..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia – 2009
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
"...and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED insofar as it is controlled by the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (2009) (Counts 6 & 7). However, it is DENIED with regard to Count 5, Plaintiffs' claim that the Corps failed to pro..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2010
Sierra Club v. Antwerp
"...the agency has considered those effects and determined that competing policy values outweigh those costs. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 191 (4th Cir.2009) (citing Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835.) Even if the court finds the contrary views more persu..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland – 2020
City of Columbus v. Trump
"...and capricious standard "is not meant to reduce judicial review to a ‘rubber-stamp’ of agency action." Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co. , 556 F.3d 177, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). The reviewing court must "engage in a ‘searching and careful’ inquiry of the record." Id. (quoting Citizen..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex