West Virginia Highlands Conserv. v. Island Creek Coal Co., 15028.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Citation | 441 F.2d 232 |
Docket Number | No. 15028.,15028. |
Parties | The WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY, a non-profit corporation, Appellee, v. ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, a corporation, and Frederick Dorrell, Appellants. |
Decision Date | 06 April 1971 |
441 F.2d 232 (1971)
The WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY, a non-profit corporation, Appellee,
v.
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, a corporation, and Frederick Dorrell, Appellants.
No. 15028.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 4, 1971.
Decided April 6, 1971.
Eva R. Datz, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Walter Kiechel, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Shiro Kashiwa, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edmund B. Clark, Atty. Dept. of Justice, on brief), for appellants.
James W. Moorman, Washington, D. C. (Willis O. Shay, and Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, W. Va., and Frederick R. Anderson, on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
WINTER, Circuit Judge:
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (Conservancy) sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against Frederick Dorrell, Forest Supervisor of the Monongahela National Forest, and Island Creek Coal Company (Island Creek) to halt certain mining and timber-cutting activities in the Otter Creek area of the Monongahela National Forest in order to preserve the wilderness characteristics of that area. Pending trial on the issue of permanent relief, the district judge granted a preliminary injunction, and both parties appealed. Island Creek, however, later dismissed its appeal, but Dorrell has proceeded, challenging the preliminary injunction on the grounds that Conservancy lacks standing to bring this action and that the district judge abused his discretion in granting interlocutory relief. We affirm.
I
Conservancy is a non-profit membership corporation dedicated to preserving natural, scenic and historic areas in the West Virginia highlands. It has over two hundred members who reside principally in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. It publishes a news letter and sponsors field trips for the pleasure and education of visitors to the highlands. One of its main concerns is the protection of an 18,000-acre area within the Monongahela National Forest known as the Otter Creek Basin. It has prepared a detailed study of the Ottor Creek drainage area, sponsored hikes along Otter Creek and organized meetings to discuss the future of Otter Creek.
Sometime in January, 1970, Dorrell, acting in his capacity as Forest Supervisor, prepared and submitted to the Regional Forester a plan for the administration of the Otter Creek area under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960. 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 528, et seq. The plan provided that "a sustained yield of timber will be provided where compatible with the primary recreation, wildlife, and fish objectives." Opposed to any change in the wilderness characteristics of the Otter Creek area, Conservancy, pursuant to forestry regulations, filed a petition and appeal with the Regional Forester, challenging Dorrell's plan. In
While Conservancy's petition was pending before the Regional Forester, Island Creek, allegedly the owner of mineral rights under the surface of the Otter Creek area, received permission from Dorrell to make some test drillings in the area. When Island Creek began building access roads for this purpose, Conservancy instituted this suit. In the district court Conservancy contended that Dorrell had no authority to allow Island Creek to proceed because the latter's mineral rights do not include the right to build such access roads. Further, Conservancy alleged that no mining or timber-cutting activities could be undertaken in the area without the submission of an "environmental impact statement," claimed to be required by § 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (C). And finally, Conservancy alleged that Dorrell should not be permitted to take any action with respect to Otter Creek which was inconsistent with its wilderness characteristics until Conservancy's suggestion in this regard, advanced in the petition before the Regional Forester, had been finally determined. All of these issues await resolution in the district court.
II
Before us Dorrell contends first that Conservancy lacked standing to maintain an action challenging the administration of the Otter Creek area.
...To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2019AP299 & 2019AP534
...243 (citing Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Hardin, 428 F.2d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1970) ; W. Va. Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co., 441 F.2d 232 (4th Cir. 1971) ; Citizens Comm. for Hudson Valley v. Volpe, 425 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1970) ).¶24 For example, federal courts have determined the Nat......
-
Leaf Tobacco Exporters Ass'n, Inc. v. Block, 83-2145
...Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 437 F.2d 784 (4th Cir.1971); West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co., 441 F.2d 232 (4th Cir.1971); Wilke v. Department of the Army of the United States, 485 F.2d 180 (4th Cir.1973); Clinton Community Hospital Corp. v. Sout......
-
Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 84-1509
...the court's "own approach may be contrary to movant's view of the merits"); West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co., 441 F.2d 232, 235 (4th Cir.1971) ("probable right," used interchangeably with "substantial issues"). And see the excellent discussion in Comment, Probabi......
-
Sierra Club v. Morton 8212 34, 70
...v. Shultz, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 278—279, 443 F.2d 689, 693—694 (1971); West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co., 441 F.2d 232, 234—235 (CA4 1971); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. United States Dept. of HEW, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 381, 383 n. 2, 428 F.2d 1083, 1085 n. 2 (1......
-
An Empirical Look at Preliminary Injunctions in Challenges Under Environmental Protection Laws
...not predict the eventual outcome on the merits with absolute assurance”); West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co., 441 F.2d 232, 235 (4th Cir. 1971) (“it is not necessary” for the movant to “demonstrate an absolute right to the relief it seeks”). 8. Courts have referred......