Opinion ID: 2318832
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Affected Area and Traceability Determinations.

Text: While injury in fact and traceability to the activity under the challenged permit are separate judicial inquiries, the underlying allegations and evidence often endeavor to support both. Gaston Copper I, 204 F.3d at 154. To determine whether an appellant/petitioner is within the affected area, a court should consider the type and source of the pollutant, the amount of the pollutant, and the distance from the person's allegedly impacted activities to the discharge. When all of the claims of harm, or threat of harm, to the person are prospective, as alleged by Linthicum, the court should evaluate the facts using a reasonableness standard.
The case before the Court involves a nontidal wetlands and waterways permit that is different, and distinctly so, from the challenged activities in the cases relied on by the Majority opinion in its analysis, each of which involved potential or existing discharges of metals or other inherently toxic pollutants. To be sure, nutrients and sediments in excess also can cause environmental impacts, as detailed in the literature alluded to by the Petitioner. Nutrients and sediments, however, occur naturally in stream systems, sometimes in large amounts, in a dynamic relationship with the surrounding ecosystem. This is not the case with toxic metals such as mercury, where even small amounts, introduced through anthropogenic [3] sources, likely will cause harm or a reasonable fear of harm. A recent Eighth Circuit decision evaluated the affected area of a power generation plant where wetland and stream fill was authorized by a Clean Water Act § 404 permit. [4] Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 645 F.3d 978, 986 (8th Cir.2011). The utility company permittee argued, as the Respondent developer does in the instant case, that the plaintiffs were required to show harm as a result of the particular activities authorized by the § 404 permit, rather than the overall construction of the plant. Id. The court agreed and evaluated the affected area and potential harm solely from the perspective of the activities authorized by the § 404 permit. Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 986-89. One plaintiff, a private hunting club with an individual member who owned property adjacent to the plant site, was able to persuade the court that it had standing because light and noise pollution from the clearing of the land for the power transmission line harmed the member's aesthetic interests by changing the behavior of the local wildlife. Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 987. Other hunting club members averred that they enjoyed taking pictures, hunting and studying the history and archaeology of the area adjacent to the plant site. Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 987-88. The court concluded that the interests of the hunting club and its members were harmed by the activities authorized by the § 404 permit. Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 988. The court also evaluated the standing claim of an environmental organization, the Sierra Club, that argued the affected area is the plant site as well as the area in its immediate proximity.... Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 988-89. The court agreed with the Sierra Club and conferred standing based on the district court's finding that bird watching and other recreational interests of the Club's members were injured implicitly, at least in part, by the utility's § 404 activities. Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 989. The court also relied upon the allegation that members of both groups were upset by the amount of mud and silt from the plant which the district court found was related directly to the § 404 permit. Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 978. This is the most recent Eighth Circuit case on point and is particularly informative in the present case for its analytical model. It involved a challenged activity similar to that of the developer here. Importantly, the federal court limited its review of the potential harm to the § 404 permit-authorized activities, rather than the entire construction site. The Eighth Circuit likely limited the affected area determination for a § 404 permit to the area in immediate proximity to the site due to the uncertainty in determining cause-and-effect at any substantial distance from a dredged or filled wetland or stream. The Majority opinion in the present case, however, recites and relies on Linthicum's fear of development and impervious surfaces from the Woodmore Towne Center development. Maj. Op. at 305-06, 29 A.3d at 590-91 (2011). While these potential impacts may not be insignificant, they are upland land use changes primarily that are not within the scope of the MDE permit or the MDE's jurisdiction and, consequently, they do not support Petitioner's standing. Petitioner challenged the MDE permit based primarily on increases of nutrients and sediments. This Court should evaluate Linthicum's potential future harm proffers from the activities authorized by the MDE permit, not the larger Woodmore Towne Center development.
Neither the Circuit Court nor the Majority opinion analyzed the magnitude of the alleged impact as it relates to whether Linthicum was within the affected area. While federal courts indicate that the amount of the harm is not relevant particularly, so long as there is at least an identifiable trifle, SCRAP, 412 U.S. at 689 n. 14, 93 S.Ct. at 2417 n. 14, 37 L.Ed.2d at 270 n. 14, the scale of the permitted activity is relevant, as a threshold matter, to determining whether there is a threat of harm. The challenged permit here authorized less than one acre of nontidal wetland fill and placement of streams into oversized culverts to eliminate or minimize the impact of channelization. Even had Linthicum shown that these activities were an actual source of the pollutants he complains of, the amount of the pollutants, and therefore the scale of these impacts, in a watershed that is over 70,000 acres, appears minimal. This case differs from the scenario in Sierra Club in that those plaintiffs were able to point to current impacts of the § 404 permit, including large amounts of silt and mud around the plant. Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 978. Here, even after completion of the construction of the permitted activities, Linthicum did not see additional sediment, increased algae or other signs of nutrient enrichment, or any changes visible to the human eye as a result of the construction. While visual confirmation of environmental damage, such as excessive sedimentation, is not a requirement for an appellant or petitioner challenging prospective activities under MDE permits, this should be informative to this Court's evaluation, under the reasonableness standard, of Linthicum's showing. Additionally, the absence of a visual observation of the alleged harms should guide future trial and appellate court evaluations of other relatively small disturbances in wetland and waterway permit challenges, especially where solely aesthetic interests are claimed.
Federal cases have not articulated a clear standard for gauging distance from a pollutant discharge to a plaintiff's activities that defines the affected area; rather, the affected areas are highly dependent on the individual facts of each case. The largest affected area in the relevant federal cases was 40 miles downstream of a toxic discharge of mercury. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 183, 120 S.Ct. at 705, 145 L.Ed.2d at 628. In another case, however, a court declined to find injury in fact where the plaintiffs used a creek 18 miles downstream of an oil refinery's stormwater discharge. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petrol., 95 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir.1996). The Fifth Circuit stated, At some point, however, we can no longer assume that an injury is fairly traceable to a defendant's conduct solely on the basis of the observation that water runs downstream. Under such circumstances, a plaintiff must produce some proof.... Crown Cent., 95 F.3d at 362. This reasoning applies well to the circumstances of the instant case where there is no traditional discharge, just the alleged potential, at most, for long term, cumulative land use and hydrologic changes. In yet another situation, the Fourth Circuit concluded that a plaintiff's activity, 16.5 miles downstream, was within the affected area of discharges of numerous heavy metals and chemical contaminants in excess of permitted limits. Friends of the Earth v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 629 F.3d 387, 397 (4th Cir.2011) (Gaston Copper III). Another court found that a distance of two to four miles was not too far and not so tenuous for harm to the plaintiffs' interests from a discharge of pollutants where reports indicated regular exceeding of permit limits. Friends of the Earth v. Chevron Chem. Co., 900 F.Supp. 67, 75 (E.D.Tex.1995). Four miles downstream of hog waste discharges was within the affected area when the plaintiff observed the water at that distance getting darker, increased algae, and dead fish floating in the water. Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, 326 F.3d 505, 518 (4th Cir.2003). Two Seventh Circuit cases involved pollution discharges into a lake, potentially a more static body of water. In one, the court found, based on the proposed permitted emissions from a nuclear facility, that a plaintiff's activity three miles away was within the affected area. Sierra Club v. Franklin Cnty. Power of Ill., 546 F.3d 918, 925 (7th Cir.2008). In the other case, the court found that a plaintiff located 13 miles away from a bullet lead discharge into Lake Michigan was not within the affected area. Pollack v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 577 F.3d 736, 743 (7th Cir.2008) (stating that, without some support for the assertion that he will be affected by the drift or polluted sediment or water, Pollack has not shown that he has standing to pursue this lawsuit). Based on the wide ranges of distances from the challenged activities in the federal cases, it would be impossible to determine in the present case if 8.5 miles downstream of the wetland fill and stream culvert is, or is not, within the affected area, based on distance alone. In the instant case, there are no permit exceedances of any pollutants from a discrete discharge point and there are no specific allegations of toxic chemicals or metals being released from the permitted activities. The relatively small size of the wetland and stream impacts, the large size of the Western Branch watershed, the natural occurrence and dynamic variability of nutrients and sediments in the natural environment, and the distance of 8.5 miles from the impact site to the closest point of the permitted activities and the nearest part of the Western Branch frequented by Linthicum convinces me that I cannot agree with the Majority opinion that Linthicum is within the affected area of this MDE permit or that the Circuit Court erred. Petitioner asserts that another problem is that the wetland impacts, in concert with other similar impacts, present a cumulative harm to Linthicum's interest. Petitioner's argument finds support superficially in the Fourth Circuit's statement that a plaintiff must merely show that a defendant discharges a pollutant that causes or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged. Gaston Copper I, 204 F.3d at 161. Applying this theory to multiple upstream hog waste discharges, however, the court in American Canoe noted that traceability is a closer call when third parties could also have contributed to the alleged injuries. Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 520. In the present case, the challenged permit activity occurs in an urban environment where there are large numbers of unrelated sources of nutrient and sediment discharges, including developments, agricultural activities, wastewater treatment plants, and natural sources, that contribute a large volume of pollutants to the Western Branch. To countenance Linthicum attributing harm to his interests from less than one acre of wetland fill and several streams placed in culverts, 8.5 miles downstream from that relatively small impact, in a relatively large watershed, without some additional support or evidence that the challenged activity is in part actually responsible, is to render meaningless the traceability requirements of federal standing. In other cases where the claimed environmental harm was prospective, as in this case, plaintiffs were able to show injury in fact by demonstrating that they had a reasonable fear of pollutants that would prevent them from visiting the affected area or would lessen their aesthetic, recreational, or economic interest. In Franklin Power, an environmental organization challenged the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant and demonstrated standing satisfactorily with a prospective injury in fact through a member's statement that she would discontinue her biennial recreation trips due to fears that pollutants emitted by the plant would harm her and diminish her aesthetic enjoyment of the nearby lake. 546 F.3d at 925. In the present case, Linthicum has not stopped or slowed his recreation in the Western Branch since the construction under the permit was completed, and does not state that he intends to stop in the future. Petitioner emphasizes the cumulative and prospective nature of the harm in this case, as if to ask this Court to grant him flexibility in showing injury in fact due to the complexities of the overall situation. [5] In fact, the pleading requirements for future harm are relatively simple, as demonstrated in the Franklin Power case. Had Linthicum alleged that he would not return to his previously enjoyed recreation due to the permitted activity, the Petitioner would be closer to addressing the prospective harm element. Instead, Linthicum's affidavit and testimony speak to concerns and displeasure with future environmental degradation caused by cumulative urbanization in the upland areas of the watershed. [6] Thus, Petitioner failed to show that Linthicum's interests were in the affected area and that the alleged harms were traceable to the permit activities.