can show an “injury in fact” when he or she suffers “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized, as well as actual or imminent.” Gaston Copper, 204 F.3d at 154; see also Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. In an environmental case, the question is whether the plaintiff has suffered an injury, as opposed to whether the environment has actually been harmed. See Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 181, 120 S.Ct. 693. Specifically, a plaintiff need only show that he used the affected area, and that he is an individual “for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area [are] lessened” by the defendant’s activity. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); see also Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 184, 120 S.Ct. 693 (<HOLDING>); Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 562-63,
holding in suit under the cwa that environmental plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact when they aver that they use the affected area and are persons for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened  quoting sierra club v morton 405 us at 735 92 sct 1361 holding that plaintiffs had established an injury in fact because the challenged activity directly affected their recreational aesthetic and economic interests holding that the threat of injury was not speculative because the plaintiffs had been previously charged under the challenged statute holding that plaintiffs alleged a sufficient injury in fact in that their members whalewatching and studying would be adversely affected by continued whale harvesting and this type of injury was within zone of interests protected by statute holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed