ELR Citation: ELR 21154
No(s). 98-561(RCL) (D.D.C. Mar 24, 1999)

The court orders the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to suspend operation of a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) that granted a private company the right to bioprospect microbial organisms in Yellowstone National Park pending completion of necessary National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. Environmental groups alleged that the CRADA violated several federal laws and regulations. The court first holds that the groups have constitutional standing to challenge the CRADA under the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA), the National Park Service Organic Act, the Yellowstone National Park Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Because the collection of microbial specimens is an actual invasion of the groups' recognized aesthetic and recreational interests, the groups have established injury-in-fact. In addition, a favorable ruling from the court would invalidate, or at least suspend, the CRADA, and, thus, eliminate commercial bioprospecting in Yellowstone National Park, redressing the groups' claimed injuries. Similarly, the court holds that the groups fall within the zone of interests to be protected by the CRADA provision of the FTTA. Therefore, the groups have prudential standing under the FTTA.

The court next holds that the groups have stated a cause of action under the APA that DOI acted in violation of the FTTA. Moreover, the court holds that the groups have sufficiently stated a cause of action under the National Park Service Organic Act and the Yellowstone National Park Organic Act. The court, however, holds that the groups have no cause of action under the public trust doctrine. Congress has supplanted any trust obligations by enacting the detailed regulatory system governing the national parks.

The court then holds that DOI must prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the CRADA in accordance with NEPA's requirements. DOI's post-hoc invocation of a categorical exclusion during litigation cannot justify their failure to prepare an EA or an EIS before entering into the CRADA. Further, DOI could not have reasonably found that none of the several exceptions to all categorical exclusions applied. In addition, the approval of the CRADA was a major federal action. The CRADA is a precedent-setting agreement within the National Park System and DOI in general. Further, the introduction of commercial bioprospecting into the nation's parks represents a dramatic change of Park Service policy in Yellowstone and elsewhere.

[Briefs & Pleadings in this litigation are published at ELR BRIEFS & PLEADS, 66590.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Joseph Mendelson II
International Center for Technology Assessment
310 D St. NE, Washington DC 20002
(202) 547-9359

Counsel for Defendants
Scott S. Harris
U.S. Attorney's Office
5806 Judiciary Center Bldg.
555 4th St. NW, Washington DC 20001
(202) 514-7566