Native Village of Point Hope v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ninth Circuit

Native Village of Point Hope v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

541 F. App'x 748

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 29, 2013

Docket12-35976

StatusUnpublished

This text of 541 F. App'x 748 (Native Village of Point Hope v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Native Village of Point Hope v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 541 F. App'x 748 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, and Northern Alaska Environmental Center appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the EPA.

Native Village of Point Hope has standing to challenge the EPA’s action on behalf of one of its members, Franklin Sage. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). Sage’s affidavit established a credible threat of injury that is traceable to the EPA’s action because it alleged that his family fishes for Arctic grayling in the Wulik River, that Sage trades for such fish, and that he is concerned that pollution in Red Dog Creek threatens the Arctic grayling population. See Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 859 (9th Cir.2005).

We reject Point Hope’s argument that the EPA was arbitrary and capricious in approving the site-specific water quality criterion for total dissolved solids (TDS) in Red Dog Creek during Arctic grayling spawning season without first obtaining additional data on the long term and delayed impacts to Arctic grayling from exposure to TDS at fertilization. The EPA’s reasonable conclusion (after consideration of the Stekoll study) that it was unnecessary to require follow-up research regarding such long-term effects of exposure, was well within its “wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.” Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. E.P.A., 344 F.3d 832, 870 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C.Cir.1999)).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, and Northern Alaska Environmental Center appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the EPA.

Native Village of Point Hope has standing to challenge the EPA’s action on behalf of one of its members, Franklin Sage. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). Sage’s affidavit established a credible threat of injury that is traceable to the EPA’s action because it alleged that his family fishes for Arctic grayling in the Wulik River, that Sage trades for such fish, and that he is concerned that pollution in Red Dog Creek threatens the Arctic grayling population. See Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 859 (9th Cir.2005).

We reject Point Hope’s argument that the EPA was arbitrary and capricious in approving the site-specific water quality criterion for total dissolved solids (TDS) in Red Dog Creek during Arctic grayling spawning season without first obtaining additional data on the long term and delayed impacts to Arctic grayling from exposure to TDS at fertilization. The EPA’s reasonable conclusion (after consideration of the Stekoll study) that it was unnecessary to require follow-up research regarding such long-term effects of exposure, was well within its “wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.” Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. E.P.A., 344 F.3d 832, 870 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C.Cir.1999)).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 F. App'x 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/native-village-of-point-hope-v-us-environmental-protection-agency-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack