output
stringclasses 2
values | input
stringlengths 289
1.59k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
1
|
A long-standing executive order “require[s] federal agencies to include environmental-justice analysis in their NEPA reviews.” Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d at 1368; see Executive Order 12,898, § 1-101, 59 Fed. Reg. 7,629 (Feb. 11, 1994). The environmental-justice analysis forces agencies “to consider whether the projects they sanction will have a ‘disproportionately high and adverse’ impact on low-income and predominantly minority communities.” Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d at 1368; see also Executive Order 12,898, § 3-302(a) (requiring agencies to collect and analyze demographic data “to determine whether their ... activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations”). As for the geographic scope of the environmental-justice analysis — that is, what low-income and minority communities to consider — “an agency's delineation of the area potentially affected by the project must be reasonable and adequately explained, ... and include a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made.” Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad v. FERC, 6 F.4th 1321, 1330 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “[A] petitioner may challenge an agency's environmental justice analysis as arbitrary and capricious under NEPA and the APA.”
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
As Justice Douglas pointed out nearly [fifty] years ago, ‘[a]s often happens with interstate highways, the route selected was through the poor area of town, not through the area where the politically powerful people live.’ ” Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v. Glendening, 174 F.3d 180, 195 (4th Cir. 1999) (King, J., concurring) (quoting Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie, 402 U.S. 497, 502, 91 S.Ct. 1650, 29 L.Ed.2d 61 (1971) (Douglas, J., dissenting)); see also Nicky Sheats, Achieving Emissions Reductions for Environmental Justice Communities Through Climate Change Mitigation Policy, 41 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 377, 382 (2017) (“There is evidence that a disproportionate number of environmental hazards, polluting facilities, and other unwanted land uses are located in communities of color and low-income communities.”). “The purpose of an environmental justice analysis is to determine whether a project will have a disproportionately adverse effect on minority and low income populations.” Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 541 (8th Cir. 2003). “Although the term ‘environmental justice’ is of fairly recent vintage, the concept is not.” Jersey Heights, 174 F.3d at 195 (King, J., concurring).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
We conclude, in agreement with the FAA, that Boston's claim is properly before this court because it arises under NEPA and the APA, rather than the two orders cited above. The FAA exercised its discretion to include the environmental justice analysis in its NEPA evaluation, and that analysis therefore is properly subject to “arbitrary and capricious” review under the APA. See City of Olmsted Falls, 292 F.3d at 269 (holding that the “arbitrary and capricious” standard is applied to determine the adequacy of an EIS). Boston's claim, in any event, clearly fails on the merits. The FAA's methodology was reasonable and adequately explained: The FEIS sought to compare the demographics of the population predicted to be affected by any increased noise resulting from the project to the demographics of the population that otherwise might conceivably be affected by noise from the airport. A comparison population based on a larger geographic area could reasonably be rejected because significant noise impacts are limited to the vicinity of the airport. The FAA's choice among reasonable analytical methodologies is entitled to deference from this court. See Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 200-01 (“We have ... held consistently that the rule of reason guides every aspect of the FAA's approach, including its choice of scientific method.”). In any case, the FAA reasonably concluded that the minority proportion of the population exposed to significant noise impacts as a result of the project would be no greater than if no action were taken. FEIS at 3-58, J.A. 784.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
We agree. When conducting an environmental justice analysis, an agency's delineation of the area potentially affected by the project must be “reasonable and adequately explained,” Cmtys Against Runway Expansion, 355 F.3d at 689, and include “a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made,” id. at 685 (quoting State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856). Elsewhere in its EIS for each project, the Commission determined that the environmental effects of the project would extend beyond the census blocks located within a two-mile radius of the project site. For instance, the Commission determined that impacts on air quality from each project could occur within 31 miles. No. 20-1045 J.A. 610; No. 20-1094 J.A. 1008. The Commission has offered no explanation as to why, in light of that finding, it chose to delineate the area potentially affected by the projects to include only those census blocks within two miles of the project sites for the purposes of its environmental justice analyses. Because the Commission has offered no “rational connection between the facts found and the decision made,” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, we find its decision to analyze the projects’ impacts only on communities in census blocks within two miles of the project sites to be arbitrary.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
On remand, the Commission must explain why it chose to analyze the projects’ impacts only on communities in census blocks within two miles of the project sites, or else analyze the projects’ impacts on communities within a different radius of each project site. Additionally, it must explain whether its finding that “all project-affiliated populations are minority or low-income populations,” No. 20-1045 J.A. 142; No. 20-1094 J.A. 691–92, is still justified, and, if so, whether its conclusion that the projects “would not have disproportionate adverse effects on minority and low-income residents in the area,” No. 20-1045 J.A. 566; see also No. 20-1094 J.A. 968, still holds.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Sierra Club contends that FERC misread “disproportionately high and adverse,” the standard for when a particular environmental effect raises an environmental-justice concern. By Sierra Club's lights, any effect can fulfill the test, regardless of its intensity, extent, or duration, if it is not beneficial and falls disproportionately on environmental-justice communities. But even if we assume that understanding to be correct, we cannot see how this EIS was deficient. It discussed the intensity, extent, and duration of the pipelines' environmental effects, and also separately discussed the fact that those effects will disproportionately fall on environmental-justice communities. Recall that the EIS informed readers and the agency's ultimate decisionmakers that 83.7% of the pipelines' length would be in or near environmental-justice communities. The EIS also evaluated route alternatives in part by looking at the number of environmental-justice communities each would cross, and the mileage of pipeline each would place in low-income and minority areas. FERC thus grappled with the disparate impacts of the various possible pipeline routes. Perhaps Sierra Club would have a stronger claim if the agency had refused entirely to discuss the demographics of the populations that will feel the pipelines' effects, and had justified this refusal by pointing to the limited intensity, extent, and duration of those effects. However, as the EIS stands, we see no deficiencies serious enough to defeat the statute's goals of fostering well-informed decisionmaking and public comment.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Indeed, under Virginia law, the Board is required to consider “character and degree of injury to ... health,” and “suitability of the activity to the area.” Va. Code Ann. § 10.1–1307(E). Both Respondents and ACP acknowledge that Virginia law -- including the Commonwealth Energy Policy and factors outlined in § 10.1-1307(E)(3) – “require[s] the Board to consider the potential for disproportionate impacts to minority and low income communities.” Resp'ts' Br. 53; see also ACP Br. 19 n.6 (“Environmental justice is a component of the Commonwealth Energy Policy.”). In fact, no party argues that the Board was excused from considering EJ in its analysis. Therefore, we accept that the Board was required to consider EJ in the Compressor Station Permit approval process. Underpinning Petitioners' arguments here is the idea that not only did the Board consider EJ separate and apart from site suitability, it did not give this point enough consideration.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Even if the entire Board made this assumption, it did not properly carry this assumption through its analysis. See Va. Code Ann. § 10.1–1307(E) (requiring Board to consider “character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health, or the reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened to be caused”); id. § 67-102 (Board must “ensur[e] that development of new” energy facilities “does not have a disproportionate adverse impact on economically disadvantaged or minority communities”). If the area around the Compressor Station is indeed an EJ minority community, the demographic and statistics change regarding whether this is a “especially sensitive” community for certain conditions. J.A. 2372. Rather than take this into account in its assumption, the Board merely falls back on NAAQS and state air quality standards not tailored to this specific EJ community. The record is replete with such reliance, up to and including the very last Board meeting
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The Board's reliance on air quality standards led it to dismiss EJ concerns. Even if all pollutants within the county remain below state and national air quality standards, the Board failed to grapple with the likelihood that those living closest to the Compressor Station -- an overwhelmingly minority population according to the Friends of Buckingham Survey -- will be affected more than those living in other parts of the same county. The Board rejected the idea of disproportionate impact on the basis that air quality standards were met. But environmental justice is not merely a box to be checked, and the Board's failure to consider the disproportionate impact on those closest to the Compressor Station resulted in a flawed analysis.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
I concur in Chief Judge Wilkinson's well-reasoned opinion of the court. I write separately, however, to memorialize my serious concern with the shabby treatment the African–American residents of Jersey Heights have suffered at the hands of state and federal highway planners and officials.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
With two alternate routes still under study in 1985, Caucasian residents who lived in the area surrounding Alternate 2—the more northerly route farther away from Jersey Heights—received individual notice about project planning, and subsequently raised timely objections to that proposed route. The residents of Jersey Heights, however, received no individual notice, and thus were unable to timely object to Alternate 4, which, of the original four proposed alternates, was the route closest to Jersey Heights. Following the path of least resistance, the State Highway Administration (SHA) designated Alternate 4 as the preferred route, and it is Alternate 4 that was approved by the FHWA in its Record of Decision in 1989.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Having made these observations, I reiterate my wholehearted concurrence with the court's decision today to reinstate the appellants' federal and state challenges to the 1995 decision not to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement, and to remand to the district court for further proceedings. It is my fervent hope that the governmental bureaucracies will henceforth make greater efforts to enhance community involvement in major decisionmaking processes. See Exec. Order No. 12898, 40 C.F.R. 1.70 (February 11, 1994) (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low–Income Populations); Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Md.Code Ann. Nat. Res. I, § 1–302 (1997); Advisory Council on Environmental Justice, Md. Ann.Code, art. 41, § 18–315(g)(1997 & Supp.1998).3 The result—greater bureaucratic responsiveness—will be positive for the good citizens of Salisbury and the State of Maryland for many years to come.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
This case involves two federal-aid interstate highway projects in Charleston, West Virginia. Charleston lies in a narrow valley, along the Kanawha River and is bisected on the east by the Elk River which joins the Kanawha near the center of the city. The Triangle district is located along the south side of the Elk and near its mouth. Many of the residents of the Tringle district are elderly and almost all have comparatively low incomes. As often happens with interstate highways, the route selected was through the poor area of town, not through the area where the politically powerful people live. The common urban housing shortage is severe in Charleston, in part, because many homes have been demolished for public projects. The impact of public projects in the Triangle has been exceptionally severe. Land clearance for a proposed expansion of a local water company displaced some 243 persons a few years ago. The planned interstate highway will displace about 300 more. And a proposed urban renewal project (which has been postponed indefinitely because of lack of replacement housing) will displace almost all of the area's 2,000 residents.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
As we ultimately decide this appeal on a legal basis and the district court's opinions stated the facts at length, we only need summarize the factual background of this case. Initially, we point out that the residents of Waterfront South are predominately minorities and the neighborhood is disadvantaged environmentally.1 Waterfront *775 South contains two Superfund sites, several contaminated and abandoned industrial sites, and many currently operating facilities, including chemical companies, waste facilities, food processing companies, automotive shops, and a petroleum coke transfer station. Moreover, NJDEP has granted permits for operation of a regional sewage treatment plant, a trash-to-steam incinerator and a co-generation power plant in the neighborhood. As a result, Waterfront South, though only one of 23 Camden neighborhoods, hosts 20% of the city's contaminated sites and, on average, has more than twice the number of facilities with permits to emit air pollution than exist in the area encompassed within a typical New Jersey zip code.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The plaintiffs have adequately established that there is a substantial threat of irreparable injury. They complain that they are being deprived of their constitutional rights. That, in itself, may constitute irreparable injury, Henry v. Greenville Airport Commission, 284 F.2d 631, 633 (4th Cir. 1960); See Ethridge v. Rhodes, 268 F.Supp. 83, 88-89 (S.D.Ohio, E.D.1967), but more is present here. The opening of the facility will affect the entire nature of the community its land values, its tax base, its aesthetics, the health and safety of its inhabitants, and the operation of Smiley High School, located only 1700 feet from the site. Damages cannot adequately compensate for these types of injuries. Similarly, if a substantial likelihood of success on the merits were shown, there is no doubt that the threatened injury to the plaintiffs would outweigh that to the defendants and that the public interest would not be disserved by granting the plaintiffs an injunction.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Arlington Heights, supra, 429 U.S. at 267-268, 97 S.Ct. at 564-565, suggested various types of non-statistical proof which can be used to establish purposeful discrimination. The supplementary non-statistical evidence provided by the plaintiffs in the present case raises a number of questions as to why this permit was granted. To begin with, a site proposed for the almost identical location was denied a permit in 1971 by the County Commissioners, who were then responsible for the issuance of such permits. One wonders what happened since that time. The plaintiffs argue that Smiley High School has changed from an Anglo school to one whose student body is predominantly minority. Furthermore, the site is being placed within 1700 feet of Smiley High School, a predominantly black school with no air conditioning, and only somewhat farther from a residential neighborhood. Land use considerations alone would seem to militate against granting this permit. Such evidence seemingly did not dissuade TDH. If this Court were TDH, it might very well have denied this permit. It simply does not make sense to put a solid waste site so close to a high school, particularly *680 one with no air conditioning. Nor does it make sense to put the land site so close to a residential neighborhood.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
0
|
In explaining the proposition that a stream of indirectly derived benefits does not flow from a private cause of action, the Abate court offered three supporting citations: Till v. Unifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 653 F.2d 152, 158 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981); United States v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 621 F.2d 1309, 1314 (5th Cir.1980); and Rogers v. Frito Lay, Inc., 611 F.2d 1074, 1079-80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 889, 101 S.Ct. 246, 66 L.Ed.2d 115, and cert. denied, 449 U.S. 889, 101 S.Ct. 246, 66 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Abate, 928 F.2d at 169. Prior to our decision in Abate, we had characterized these cases as “decisions in which this court denied private rights of action under statutes that imposed duties of enforcement upon federal departments and agencies.' Hondo Nat’l Bank v. Gill Sav. Ass’n, 696 F.2d 1095, 1100 (5th Cir.1983) (emphasis added).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
0
|
For all of the foregoing reasons, the administrative record supports the FHWA’s finding that the FSU alternative will minimize harm to the Danville Historic District. Even if we were to conclude that the MS and FSU alternatives would impose a comparable amount of harm to Danville’s Historic District, we would be bound to uphold the Secretary’s decision. These decisions are vested by law not in unelected judges but in the accountable Secretary. See Druid Hills, 772 F.2d at 716 (“The Secretary is free to choose among alternatives which cause substantially equal damage to parks or historic sites.”). The defendants performed a large number of studies on the various ways in which the alternatives would impact the Historic District and adequately weighed the results of the studies in selecting the preferred alternative. They also considered the more intangible benefits and harms to Mill and Factory Streets under the competing alternatives. As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, they considered and responded to the com.ments of the ACHP. Therefore, they did not violate Section 106. And as that discussion also demonstrates, it was not arbitrary and capricious for the FHWA to select the FSU alternative under Section 4(f)(2).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
0
|
We note, in this connection, that this case requires us not only to construe the FWPCA itself, but also to consider an arguable conflict between that Act and two statutes that EPA does not administer, the CZMA and the NFIA. While we of course owe considerable deference to EPA's interpretation of the FWPCA, we are not required to defer to its interpretation of the CZMA and the NFIA, or to its resolution of any conflict between the FWPCA and those statutes. See New Jersey Air National Guard v. FLRA, 677 F.2d 276, 281-82 & n. 6 (3d Cir.1982); see also Tsosie v. Califano, 651 F.2d 719, 722 (10th Cir.1981) (agency’s interpretation of another agency’s statutes and regulations not entitled to deference).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
0
|
Given this process, the Corps’ actions were not arbitrary and capricious. The record does not support Alaska Center’s allegations that the Corps simply designated whole classes of wetlands as unworthy of protection. Nor is there any allegation that the Corps ignored the reports from other agencies. It did not. Instead, the Corps considered the relevant factors and came to an opposite conclusion. Although Alaska Center disagrees with the Corps’ methodology and conclusions, such disagreement does not render the decision arbitrary and capricious. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (1989).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
0
|
We conclude that the decision to regulate isolated waters based on their actual use as habitat by migratory birds is within Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, and that it was reasonable for the Corps to interpret the Act as authorizing this regulation. Accordingly, we Affirm the judgment of the district court,
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if environmental justice reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Environmental justice reasoning is defined as when considerations such as distributional fairness in environmental protection or assuring procedural access and equal protection from environmental harms for poor and minority communities influence the opinion.
|
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 1