1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:18-cv-00733-JLR Document 17 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 30 1 ANNA SEWELL (WSB # 48736) 2 Earthjustice 3 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036-2243 4 (202) 797-5233 | Phone [email protected] 5 6 JAN HASSELMAN (WSB # 29107) Earthjustice 7 705 Second Avenue, Suite 203 Seattle, WA 98104 8 (206) 343-7340 | Phone 9 [email protected] 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 The Honorable James L. Robart 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 14 15 SOUND ACTION, FRIENDS OF THE SAN ) JUANS, AND WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL ) 16 COUNCIL, ) Case No. 2:18-cv-00733-JLR ) 17 Plaintiffs, ) 18 ) PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS 19 UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ) 20 ) NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: Defendant. ) November 15, 2018 21 ) ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 22 ) 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Earthjustice MOTION TO DISMISS 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 702 (CASE NO. 2:18-cv-00733-JLR) Washington, DC 20036--2243 (202) 797-5233 Case 2:18-cv-00733-JLR Document 17 Filed 10/29/18 Page 2 of 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................2 3 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2 4 I. SHORELINE ARMORING IS A MAJOR DRIVER OF ECOLOGICAL 5 DEGRADATION. ...............................................................................................................2 6 II. THE SEATTLE DISTRICT CORPS USES AN UNLAWFULLY LOW CWA 7 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY FOR SHORELINES. ..................................................3 8 III. THE CORPS REJECTED AN INTERAGENCY RECOMMENDATION TO 9 CHANGE THE CWA JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY IN THE SEATTLE DISTRICT............................................................................................................................6 10 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................8 11 I. THE SPELLMON MEMO CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION. .......................8 12 13 A. The Spellmon Memo was the consummation of the Corps’ decision- making process.........................................................................................................9 14 B. The Corps’ decision determines “rights or obligations.” .......................................16 15 II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION. .....................................21 16 17 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................24 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Earthjustice MOTION TO DISMISS 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 702 (CASE NO. 2:18-cv-00733-JLR) - ii Washington, DC 20036--2243 (202) 797-5233 Case 2:18-cv-00733-JLR Document 17 Filed 10/29/18 Page 3 of 30 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 2 Cases Page(s) 3 Alliance To Save Mattaponi v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) .............................................................................................17 4 API v. EPA, 5 216 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ...............................................................................................9, 16 6 Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 7 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................8, 10, 14 8 Bennett v. Spear, 9 520 U.S. 154 (1997) .........................................................................................................8, 9, 16 10 City of Chicago v. U.S., 396 U.S. 162 (1969) .............................................................................................................8, 17 11 City of San Diego v. Whitman, 12 242 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................19 13 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 14 588 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................24 15 Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 16 192 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................20 17 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) .................................................................................................................22 18 Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio, 19 2018 WL 5289028 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2018) .............................................................................17 20 Indep. Equip. Dealers Ass’n v. EPA, 21 372 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................19 22 In re Bluewater Network, 234 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2000) .........................................................................................15, 16 23 24 Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) .................................................................................................................20 25 Maya v. Centex Corp., 26 658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................21, 22 27 Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 28 415 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................................19 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Earthjustice MOTION TO DISMISS 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 702 (CASE NO. 2:18-cv-00733-JLR) - iii Washington, DC 20036--2243 (202) 797-5233 Case 2:18-cv-00733-JLR Document 17 Filed 10/29/18 Page 4 of 30 Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 1 417 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................................18 2 Nat’l Envtl. Dev. Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 3 752 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................8, 9, 14, 19 4 Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 5 819 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................9, 11, 15, 19 6 Neighbors of Cuddy Mtn. v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................20 7 Northcoast Envtl. Ctr. v. Glickman, 8 136 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................20 9 Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 10 465 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) .........................................................................................9, 10, 17 11 Robinson v. Hampton, 12 2010 WL 2541824 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2010) .......................................................................2 13 S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt, 318 F. Supp.3d 959 (D. S.C. 2018) ..........................................................................................12 14 Sackett v. EPA, 15 566 U.S. 120 (2012) .............................................................................................................8, 15 16 Safari Club Int’l v. Jewell, 17 842 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................14 18 Scenic America, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 836 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................14 19 20 Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) .................................................................................................................24 21 U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., Inc, 22 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016) .............................................................................................................18 23 U.S. ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 24 243 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................2, 22 25 White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................2 26 27 Wichansky v. Zoel Holding Co., Inc., 702 F. App’x 559 (9th Cir. 2017) ..............................................................................................2 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Earthjustice MOTION TO DISMISS 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 702 (CASE NO. 2:18-cv-00733-JLR) - iv Washington, DC 20036--2243 (202) 797-5233 Case 2:18-cv-00733-JLR Document 17 Filed 10/29/18 Page 5 of 30 Statutes 1 2 5 U.S.C. § 706 ................................................................................................................................24 3 33 U.S.C. § 1251 ..............................................................................................................................4 4 33 U.S.C. § 1321 ..............................................................................................................................4 5 33 U.S.C. § 1342 ..............................................................................................................................4 6 33 U.S.C. § 1344 ......................................................................................................................1,