Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO"

Transcription

1 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-284 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY, and HIGH COUNTRY CITIZENS ALLIANCE, vs. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and SCOTT G. FITZWILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Appeal Deciding Officer and Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, and RHONDA O BYRNE, in her official capacity as Appeal Reviewing Officer, Black Hills National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, and LEVI BROYLES, in his official capacity as District Ranger, Paonia Ranger District, Gunnison National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Federal Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY and HIGH COUNTRY CITIZENS ALLIANCE (collectively Citizens ) allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Citizens bring this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the above named Federal Defendants, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, SCOTT G. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 1 of 20

2 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20 FITZWILLIAMS, RHONDA O BYRNE, and LEVI BROYLES (collectively Forest Service or Federal Defendants ), in accord with the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., for violations the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ), 42 U.S.C et seq., NEPA s implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality ( CEQ ), 40 C.F.R et seq., as well as U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture regulations, 36 C.F.R. 220 et seq. 2. Citizens action arises from the Forest Service s decision to approve the Federal #3 Well Surface Use Plan of Operations ( #3 SUPO ) through a categorical exclusion ( CE ). The Forest Service s decision authorizes the construction of an approximately 3-acre drill pad site for the purpose of drilling up to 5 gas wells, as well as the development of associated oil and gas facilities and infrastructure. 3. The Forest Service approval through a CE violates the prescribed regulatory standards for approval of such development by exceeding the criteria limitations on grounddisturbing activity. 4. The Forest Service has also unlawfully failed to perform required NEPA analyses for a development project that may result in significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the environment. 5. Citizens seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to remedy the violations complained of herein. Citizens also seek an award of attorneys fees, costs, and other expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 2 of 20

3 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20 JURISDICTION & VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C and 28 U.S.C because this action involves the United States as a Defendant and arises under the laws of the United States. 7. This action reflects an actual, present, and justiciable controversy between Citizens and the Forest Service. Citizens interests will be adversely affected and irreparably injured if the Forest Service continues to violate NEPA and Forest Service regulations as alleged herein, and if this challenged decision is implemented. These injuries are concrete and particularized and fairly traceable to the Forest Service s challenged decision, providing the requisite personal stake in the outcome of this controversy necessary for this Court s jurisdiction. 8. The requested relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202 and 5 U.S.C. 705, The requested relief would redress the actual, concrete injuries the Forest Service caused to Citizens by failing to comply with NEPA mandated duties and the regulations promulgated pursuant to NEPA. 10. The challenged agency actions are final and subject to judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702, 704, and Citizens have exhausted any and all available and required administrative remedies. 12. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e). Defendant Forest Service s Paonia District Ranger, in Colorado, approved the challenged #3 SUPO. A substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this case occurred in Colorado, and this COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 3 of 20

4 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20 case involves public lands, resources, and environmental interests managed by the Forest Service Paonia District Ranger. PARTIES 13. Plaintiff CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY ( CHC ) is a nonprofit organization located in Hotchkiss, Colorado. CHC was founded in 2010 for the purpose of protecting people and their environment from irresponsible oil and gas development in the Delta County region. CHC s members and supporters include farmers, ranchers, vineyard and winery owners, and other concerned citizens impacted by oil and gas development, who currently and plan to continue to live in, use, and enjoy the communities and landscapes affected by the challenged Forest Service action. CHC brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members. 14. Plaintiff HIGH COUNTRY CITIZENS ALLIANCE ( HCCA ) is a nonprofit organization located in Crested Butte, Colorado with over 750 members. HCCA was founded in 1977 to conserve and protect wild places, rivers, and wildlife in and around Gunnison County. HCCA has worked on oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane development in Gunnison County for over a decade to prevent irreparable harm to its members interests. HCCA s members use and plan to continue to live in, use, and enjoy the communities and landscapes affected by the challenged Forest Service action. HCCA brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members. 15. The Citizens and their members have concrete and particularized interests in the valley and surrounding landscape of the North Fork of the Gunnison River (hereinafter North Fork ), which includes the project site s location, and, in particular, the protection of fragile COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 4 of 20

5 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20 land, wildlands, air, water, habitat, wildlife, and communities impacted by oil and gas development and production. 16. The Citizens and their members interests are deeply rooted in this part of Colorado s Western Slope where the Citizens members live, work, and recreate. These interests include the land, wildlands, air, rivers, streams, habitat, wildlife, topography, and other components of healthy, intact landscapes in the North Fork. Citizens and their members use and enjoy this area for hiking, hunting, camping, photography, aesthetic enjoyment, spiritual contemplation, and other vocational, scientific, and recreational activities. Citizens and their members intend to continue to use and enjoy these Forest Service public lands, wildlands, wildlife habitat, rivers, streams, and healthy environments frequently and on an ongoing basis now and in the future. 17. The aesthetic, recreational, scientific, educational, and procedural interests of Citizens and their members have been adversely affected and irreparably injured by the process the Forest Service used for approving the #3 SUPO through a CE, and by the Forest Service s decision itself. The adverse impacts that will result from the Forest Service s process and decision threaten actual, imminent, concrete, and particularized harm to Citizens and their members interests. 18. The relief sought by Citizens would help remedy the injuries suffered by Citizens and their members. The Forest Service would be required to revisit the challenged #3 SUPO and take action to meaningfully evaluate and prevent or abate significant impacts that would result from Forest Service s authorization of oil and gas development in this area. The relief sought would redress these injuries. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 5 of 20

6 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of Defendant UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE is an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture and is responsible for managing public lands and resources in Colorado, including oil and gas exploration and development on and affecting Forest Service lands in the North Fork, and, particularly the lands implicated herein. In this capacity, the Forest Service is responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the federal laws implicated by this action. 20. Defendant SCOTT G. FITZWILLIAMS is the Forest Supervisor of the White River National Forest for the U.S. Forest Service, is the Appeal Deciding Officer for the decision challenged herein, and, in that official capacity, is responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the federal laws implicated by this action. 21. Defendant RHONDA O BYRNE is a District Ranger in the Northern Hills Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest, was the Appeal Reviewing Officer for the decision challenged herein, and, in that official capacity, is responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the federal laws implicated by this action. 22. Defendant LEVI BROYLES, is a District Ranger in the Paonia Ranger District of the Gunnison National Forest, authored the challenged decision herein, and, in that official capacity, is responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the federal laws implicated by this action. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 23. NEPA is our basic national charter for the protection of the environment. 40 C.F.R Recognizing that each person should enjoy a healthful environment, NEPA ensures that the federal government uses all practicable means to assure for all Americans safe, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 6 of 20

7 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20 healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings, and to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences, among other policies. 43 U.S.C. 4331(b). 24. NEPA regulations explain, in 40 C.F.R (c), that: Ultimately, of course, it is not better documents but better decisions that count. NEPA s purpose is not to generate paperwork even excellent paperwork but to foster excellent action. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. 25. Agencies shall integrate NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts. 40 C.F.R To accomplish this purpose, NEPA sets out three categories of review for agency action. First, the preparation of an environmental impact statement ( EIS ) is required for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R ; 40 C.F.R (a). Second, certain actions may be categorically excluded ( CE ) from full NEPA Review. NEPA regulations define CEs as actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 40 C.F.R A categorically excluded activity may nonetheless require full NEPA analysis if there are extraordinary circumstances, such as when the action causes significant impacts. Id.; 36 C.F.R Third, any actions that do not fall into either of the two categories above should be evaluated through an environmental assessment ( EA ) to determine whether the proposed action s impacts may be significant. 40 C.F.R If the COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 7 of 20

8 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20 EA concludes that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, then an EIS must be prepared. Id. 27. In determining whether an action requires an EA, an EIS, or is categorically excluded, NEPA requires agencies to consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, as well as the significance of an action. 42 U.S.C. 4332; 40 C.F.R ; 40 C.F.R (c); 40 C.F.R A cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 40 C.F.R Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 40 C.F.R (b). 30. NEPA requires agencies to consider, among other things: (1) the degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration; and (2) whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. 40 C.F.R (6); 40 C.F.R (7). The action is significant if it is reasonably anticipated to have a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. 40 C.F.R (7). Such significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. Id. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 8 of 20

9 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of In addition, NEPA regulations require agencies to consider the impacts of connected actions, cumulative actions, and similar actions. 40 C.F.R (a). All three of these actions should be discussed in the same impact statement. Id. 32. In accordance with these definitions, an agency must give a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum. 33. Forest Service regulations require scoping on all proposed projects, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded. In determining the scope of a proposed project, the responsible Forest Service officer is required to consider the cumulative impacts of connected, cumulative, and similar actions. STATEMENT OF FACTS 34. On June 14, 2012, oil and gas industry developer SG Interests submitted to the Forest Service a Surface Use Plan of Operations ( #3 SUPO ), identified as Federal # 3 Application for Permit to Drill ( APD ). 35. On July 9, 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Paonia Ranger District, in a letter to interested parties initiating scoping, announced its intent to authorize SG Interests to exercise and conduct surface operations associated with accessing, drilling, testing, and completing a multiple-well drill pad for up to 5 gas wells within the Gunnison National Forest. 36. The proposed drill pad is located in Township 11 South, Range 90 West, Section 9 on Federal lease COC-8905 in Gunnison County, Colorado. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 9 of 20

10 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of Plaintiffs CHC and HCCA both submitted scoping comments to the Forest Service regarding SG Interests #3 SUPO, on August 9, 2012, raising concerns identified herein. 38. The Forest Service, in a Decision Memorandum dated March 12, 2013 and signed by Defendant Broyles (hereinafter DM1 ), authorized SG Interests proposed #3 SUPO through a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C Among other requirements, Section 390 mandates as a condition of approving an oil and gas development activity through a CE that site-specific analysis in a document prepared pursuant to NEPA has been previously completed. Id. at 15942(b)(1). 40. In an effort to satisfy this requirement, the Forest Service identified that prior sitespecific analysis was carried out for the Gunnison Energy 16 Well Master Development Plan. This plan was also approved through the use of a CE, and, thus, contained no site-specific NEPA analysis of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of oil and gas development. 41. Plaintiffs CHC and HCCA both submitted an administrative appeal to the Forest Service regarding DM1, on May 1, 2013 and May 5, 2013 respectively, identifying the Forest Service s failure to perform any prior site-specific NEPA analysis, as well as other concerns with the proposed project. 42. On June 14, 2013, Citizens received notice from the Forest Service Appeals Deciding Officer that Defendant Ranger Broyles was withdrawing his Decision, identified herein as DM1, approving SG Interests #3 SUPO due to administrative issues. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 10 of 20

11 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 11 of On September 4, 2013, the Forest Service issued a second Decision Memorandum, signed by Defendant Broyles (hereinafter DM2 ), again authorizing SG Interests proposed #3 SUPO through a CE. This time, however, the Forest Service justified its use of a CE by applying Forest Service regulations at 36 C.F.R (e)(17). 44. In identifying categories of actions excluded from analysis in an EIS or EA, Forest Service regulations provide in part: Approval of a Surface Use Plan of Operations for oil and natural gas exploration and initial development activities, associated with or adjacent to a new oil and/or gas field or area, so long as the approval will not authorize activities in excess of any of the following: (i) One mile of new road construction; (ii) One mile of road reconstruction; (iii) Three miles of individual or co-located pipelines and/or utilities disturbance; and (iv) Four drill sites. (Emphasis added). 45. The Forest Service s approval of #3 SUPO would authorize oil and gas development by SG Interests, including: the construction of an approximately 3-acre drill pad, sized for drilling up to 5 gas wells; the construction of approximately 1/3 mile (~1700 feet) of access road with co-located gas and water lines; and 5.5 miles of surface HDPE pipeline to transport wastewater to the McIntyre Flowback Pits (which will be shared with adjacent oil and gas development SG Interests is pursuing within the Bull Mountain Unit, identified as the Bull Mountain Master Development Plan). 46. The construction of 5.5 miles of HDPE pipeline exceeds the 3-mile regulatory threshold for a CE under Forest Service regulation, 36 C.F.R (e)(17), by at least 2 miles. 47. The regulation allowing the Forest Service to approve development under a CE makes no distinction between a permanent or temporary pipeline, nor whether such pipeline is constructed on Forest Service, state, federal, or private lands. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 11 of 20

12 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 12 of The Forest Service s decision to approve the #3 SUPO through a CE failed to consider the entire 5.5-mile length of the HDPE pipeline. Rather, the agency considered only the surface disturbing activities that will take place on Forest Service lands, thus counting only the 1.45 miles of pipeline on Forest Service lands and disregarding the other 4.05 miles of pipeline disturbance. 49. The Forest Service s decision on the #3 SUPO failed to account for the agency s broader NEPA mandate, relying exclusively on the specific regulatory criteria for a CE to justify approval and, thus, failing to consider or analyze potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action. 50. Of particular concern, here, are the potentially significant cumulative impacts that may result from development of the #3 SUPO when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in the area. 51. As recognized by the Forest Service decision to withdraw DM1, there has been no prior site-specific NEPA analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of oil and gas development in the area. 52. The North Fork is the target of increasing interest from to oil and gas industry who wish to develop the region for its mineral resources. In recent years, this interest has included the nomination of approximately 30,000 acres of public lands to be included in a Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ) oil and gas lease sale, proposals for master development plans ( MDPs ) that collectively include hundreds of oil and gas wells, as well as individual well drilling requests. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 12 of 20

13 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 13 of SG Interests is one of the main industry proponents seeking to extract oil and gas in the North Fork. Since the early 2000s, the Forest Service has approved similar SG Interests SUPOs and APDs located in the North Fork. For example, the Henderson #1R SUPO is located on the same federal lease as the #3 SUPO (COC-8905). The Henderson #1R SUPO was similarly approved with a CE in The cumulative impacts of the Henderson #1R SUPO, the #3 SUPO, as well as other projects within this geographic area, have never been analyzed. 55. In addition, SG Interests is the industry proponent of the Bull Mountain MDP, which is approximately 2-miles away from the #3 SUPO challenged herein. The Bull Mountain MDP is a proposed 150-well oil and gas development with a project area of approximately 19,645 acres of federal and private mineral estate. 56. The Bull Mountain MDP and the #3 SUPO challenged herein will share oil and gas infrastructure, including gas and water pipelines, as well as the McIntyre Flowback pits. 57. The Bull Mountain MDP principally consists of BLM managed minerals with primarily private surface ownership. The BLM s Uncompahgre Field Office released a Preliminary EA for this project on March 22, Citizens participated in BLM decisionmaking by submitting administrative comments on the Preliminary EA. The BLM determined that a finding of no significant impact ( FONSI ) was unsupportable, and decided to prepare an EIS for the project, which is still pending. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 13 of 20

14 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 14 of The Forest Service did not consider the Bull Mountain MDP, the Henderson #1R SUPO, or other reasonably foreseeable development in a cumulative analysis prior to authorizing SG Interests proposed #3 SUPO. 60. The #3 SUPO is located in an area with many other resource values that may be impacted directly, indirectly or cumulatively by the proposed development. 61. The proposed project is in the West Muddy Creek area; a tributary for the North Fork of the Gunnison River and, consequently, the Colorado River. The proposed pad site would be approximately 600 feet away from Little Henderson Creek. 62. SG Interests states that the primary source of the fresh water required for drilling is Little Henderson Creek, and that either trucks or poly-pipeline would be used to transport the water to the drill pad. 63. SG Interests estimates that 150,000 barrels of water would be needed for completing the first of up to 5 gas wells. 64. The pit water necessary for the proposed #3 SUPO would be transported approximately 5.5 miles from the McIntyre Flowback Pits, which would be shared other wells, including those from the Bull Mountain MDP. 65. The proposed #3 SUPO is also within a Colorado Parks and Wildlife ( CPW ) mapped critical elk habitat, which is the only Winter Concentration Area and Winter Range in this geographic area. The location is also within elk summer and overall range. 66. More broadly, the North Fork contains important wildlife habitat that may also be impacted by the current and proposed mineral extraction in the area. Intensive development of COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 14 of 20

15 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20 the North Fork would reduce suitable wildlife habitat, threaten the land s integrity, and impact important water resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin. 67. On October 22, 2013, Citizens submitted an administrative appeal of the Forest Service DM2, authorizing SG Interests #3 SUPO through a CE. 68. On December 3, 2013, the Appeal Reviewing Officer Defendant O Byrne submitted a Recommendation Memorandum for Citizens appeal of the #3 SUPO to Appeal Deciding Officer Defendant Fitzwilliams, recommending that Defendant District Ranger Broyles decision be affirmed and that the Appeal be denied. 69. On December 5, 2013, Appeal Deciding Officer Defendant Fitzwilliams incorporated Defendant O Byrne s recommendation, affirming Defendant Broyles decision and denying Citizens appeal and request for relief. paragraphs. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF A. THE FOREST SERVICE VIOLATED NEPA AND AGENCY REGULATIONS BY APPROVING THE PROPOSED #3 SUPO THROUGH A CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION. (First Claim: Violation of NEPA) 70. The Citizens hereby restate and incorporate by this reference all preceding 71. The Forest Service is required to comply with NEPA, NEPA s implementing CEQ regulations, as well as the Forest Service s own NEPA compliance regulations. 36 C.F.R (b). 72. The Forest Service s NEPA regulations do not lessen the applicability of CEQ regulations, rather, the agency is required to use the CEQ regulations in conjunction with its own. 36 C.F.R (b). COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 15 of 20

16 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 16 of The Forest Service used agency regulations at 36 C.F.R (e)(17) to approve SG Interests #3 SUPO. The specific terms of this regulation requires that, among other things, there be no more than 3 miles of individual or co-located pipelines and/or utilities disturbance. Here, the Forest Service s decision results in the construction of 5.5 miles of HDPE poly-pipeline, exceeding the CE s requirement by over 2.5 miles. This 2.5-mile exceedance is a prima facie violation of the CE s requirement. 74. The Forest Service s actions are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority and limitations, short of statutory right, and not in accordance with the law and procedures required by law, because the Forest Service improperly approved the #3 SUPO with a CE despite its prima facie violation of the CE s requirements. 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), (C), (D). paragraphs. B. THE FOREST SERVICE VIOLATED NEPA BY FAILING TO CONSIDER DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN APPROVING THE #3 SUPO THROUGH A CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION. (Second Claim: Violation of NEPA) 75. The Citizens hereby restate and incorporate by this reference all preceding 76. The Forest Service must comply with NEPA before making any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)(v); see also 40 C.F.R , (a). 77. NEPA imposes action-forcing procedures that require agencies to take a hard look at environmental consequences. These environmental consequences may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. 40 C.F.R , , COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 16 of 20

17 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 17 of Certain agency actions may be categorically excluded from full NEPA review. NEPA regulations define categorical exclusions as actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 40 C.F.R A categorically excluded activity may nonetheless require full NEPA analysis if there are extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. 40 C.F.R A federal action affects the environment when it will or may have an effect on the environment. 40 C.F.R Federal agencies determine whether direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are significant by accounting for both the context and intensity of those impacts. 40 C.F.R The Forest Service must consider NEPA s significance criteria, including the potential for cumulatively significant impacts, before approving a project through a CE. 83. Forest Service policy recognizes that the agency must consider NEPA significance factors prior to authorizing development through a CE, explaining that extraordinary circumstances must be interpreted in light of the entire [CEQ] regulation and its accompanying policy, and, further, explicitly instructing the Forest Service to read all sections of its policy handbook in conjunction. 84. Forest Service regulations on extraordinary circumstances provides a list of special resource conditions that the Forest Service should consider when determining whether the proposed action may have significant environmental effects within the meaning of NEPA. These regulations, however, do not define the types of effects the agency must consider (i.e., COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 17 of 20

18 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20 direct, indirect, or cumulative), nor the factors that should guide its significance determinations. 85. Federal agencies must take the appropriate steps to ensure that their application of the CE authority is limited to those situations where there is truly only an insignificant or minor effect on the environment. 86. Here, the Forest Service failed to consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the #3 SUPO when approving the proposed development through a CE; rather, the Forest Service isolated SG Interests proposed SUPO, viewing it in a vacuum. 87. The Forest Service s actions are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority and limitations, short of statutory right, and not in accordance with the law and procedures required by law, because the Forest Service unlawfully failed to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action. 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), (C), (D). RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Declare that Forest Service s actions violate NEPA, and regulations and policies promulgated thereunder; B. Set aside the Forest Service s actions; C. Suspend and enjoin development of the #3 SUPO, as well as all other SUPO and APD level oil and gas activity authorized by the Forest Service through a CE, pending full compliance with NEPA, and NEPA s regulations and policies; COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 18 of 20

19 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20 D. Issue such relief as the Plaintiffs subsequently request or that this Court may deem just, proper, and equitable; E. Retain jurisdiction over this matter until the Forest Service fully remedies the violations of law enumerated in this complaint; and law. F. Award Plaintiffs their fees, costs, and other expenses as provided by applicable Respectfully submitted this 31 st day of January 2014, _/s/ Kyle J. Tisdel Kyle J. Tisdel (CO Bar No ) Megan Anderson O Reilly (NM Bar No ) WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER 208 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Suite 602 Taos, New Mexico (p) (f) tisdel@westernlaw.org anderson@westernlaw.org Counsel for Plaintiffs Citizens for a Healthy Community and High Country Citizens Alliance Citizens for a Healthy Community P.O. Box 291 Hotchkiss, Colorado High Country Citizens Alliance P.O. Box 1066 Crested Butte, Colorado Allison N. Melton (CO Bar No ) HIGH COUNTRY CITIZENS ALLIANCE PO Box 1066 Crested Butte, Colorado (p) (f) alli.melton@gmail.com COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 19 of 20

20 Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20 Counsel for Plaintiff High Country Citizens Alliance High Country Citizens Alliance P.O. Box 1066 Crested Butte, Colorado COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PAGE 20 of 20

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Plaintiffs. vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Plaintiffs. vs. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Marc D. Fink, pro hac vice application pending Center for Biological Diversity 1 Robinson Street Duluth, Minnesota 0 Tel: 1--; Fax: 1-- mfink@biologicaldiversity.org Neil Levine, pro hac

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PRESCOTT DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PRESCOTT DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :0-cv-0-NVW Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PRESCOTT DIVISION CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; GRAND CANYON TRUST; and SIERRA CLUB, vs.

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/13/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/13/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:18-cv-00356 Document 1 Filed 02/13/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO FRONT RANGE NESTING BALD EAGLE STUDIES, Plaintiff,

More information

CITY OF FORTUNA, Defendant. /

CITY OF FORTUNA, Defendant. / 0 Jack Silver, Esq. SBN#0 Kimberly Burr, Esq. SBN#0 Northern California Environmental Defense Center 0 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA Telephone: (0)- Facsimile : (0) -0 Attorneys for Plaintiff Northern

More information

Case 4:15-cv JED-FHM Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 08/17/15 Page 1 of 11

Case 4:15-cv JED-FHM Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 08/17/15 Page 1 of 11 Case 4:15-cv-00453-JED-FHM Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 08/17/15 Page 1 of 11 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case

More information

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD, COLORADO 17 DesCombes Dr. Broomfield, CO 80020 720-887-2100 Plaintiff: COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION, v. Defendant: CITY AND COUNTY OF BROOMFIELD, COLORADO

More information

Case 4:13-cv CWD Document 1 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 4:13-cv CWD Document 1 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO EASTERN DIVISION Case 4:13-cv-00533-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 19 Sarah K. McMillan, pro hac vice pending (MT Bar #3634) WildEarth Guardians Post Office Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (P) 406.549.3895 (F) 505.213.1895

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. RIVER WATCH, non-profit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. RIVER WATCH, non-profit 1 1 Jack Silver, Esq. SBN#0 Northern California Environmental Defense Center 1 Bethards Drive, Suite Santa Rosa, CA 0 Telephone/Fax: (0)-0 Attorneys for Plaintiff Northern California River Watch NORTHERN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CITIZENS FOR SAN LUIS VALLEY - WATER PROTECTION COALITION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CITIZENS FOR SAN LUIS VALLEY - WATER PROTECTION COALITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv- CITIZENS FOR SAN LUIS VALLEY - WATER PROTECTION COALITION Plaintiff, v. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, a federal

More information

Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs

Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs Hannah R. Seifert Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al. CV 16-21-GF-BMM Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an

More information

Plaintiffs Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado and the City of Lafayette allege as follows:

Plaintiffs Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado and the City of Lafayette allege as follows: DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 Plaintiffs: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY, Colorado; and CITY OF LAFAYETTE, Colorado; v.

More information

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu

More information

Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee

Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee Final Recommendations Prepared By: Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee March 1989 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE STIPULATION SUBCOMMITTEE STANDARDIZATION OF STIPULATION FORMAT

More information

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-01151 Document 1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 7 WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, 516 Alto St Santa Fe, NM 87501 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES

More information

Environmental Group Lacks Standing to Bring Suit Against Forest Service

Environmental Group Lacks Standing to Bring Suit Against Forest Service Environmental Group Lacks Standing to Bring Suit Against Forest Service A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by an environmental group against the United States Forest Service (Forest Service)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:17-cv-00029-BMM Document 210 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-00862 Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701, v. Plaintiff, RYAN

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701, v. Plaintiff, RYAN ZINKE, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Case 4:14-cv-00007-EJL Document 40 Filed 01/17/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO RALPH MAUGHAN, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, WILDERNESS WATCH,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Davis et al v. Pennsylvania Game Commission Doc. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHY DAVIS and HUNTERS ) UNITED FOR SUNDAY HUNTING ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) PENNSYLVANIA

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00030-SLG

More information

Case 5:18-cv Document 85 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 7313

Case 5:18-cv Document 85 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 7313 Case 5:18-cv-11111 Document 85 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 7313 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Elkins Division CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 Main

More information

GUNNISON COUNTY COLORADO NORTH FORK VALLEY COAL RESOURCE SPECIAL AREA REGULATIONS

GUNNISON COUNTY COLORADO NORTH FORK VALLEY COAL RESOURCE SPECIAL AREA REGULATIONS GUNNISON COUNTY COLORADO NORTH FORK VALLEY COAL RESOURCE SPECIAL AREA REGULATIONS Adopted by the Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners November 18, 2003 BOCC Resolution No. 2003-62 North Fork Valley

More information

Case 1:08-cv RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:08-cv RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:08-cv-00380-RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 08-0380 (RMU) : v.

More information

WILDERNESS ACT. Public Law (16 U.S. C ) 88 th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964

WILDERNESS ACT. Public Law (16 U.S. C ) 88 th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 WILDERNESS ACT Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) 88 th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 AN ACT To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole

More information

COMMITTEE REPORTS. 106th Congress, 1st Session. House Report H. Rpt. 307

COMMITTEE REPORTS. 106th Congress, 1st Session. House Report H. Rpt. 307 COMMITTEE REPORTS 106th Congress, 1st Session House Report 106-307 106 H. Rpt. 307 BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON NATIONAL PARK AND GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA ACT OF 1999 DATE: September 8,

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. v. Civil Action No. Judge: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. v. Civil Action No. Judge: COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE, INC., a West Virginia nonprofit corporation, ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF CHARLESTON, WEST

More information

DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO

DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO Weld County Courthouse 901 9 th Avenue P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 351-7300 Plaintiff: The Jim Hutton Educational Foundation, a Colorado

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: J. MARTIN WAGNER (DCB #0 MARCELLO MOLLO Earthjustice th Street, th Floor Oakland, CA Tel: ( 0-00 Fax: ( 0-0 Counsel for Plaintiffs Basel Action Network, a Sub-Project of the Tides Center; and Sierra Club

More information

Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service Case 4:09-cv-00543-JJM Document 1 Filed 09/24/09 Page 1 of 12 John Buse (CA Bar No. 163156) pro hac vice application pending Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) pro hac vice application pending CENTER

More information

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 REED ZARS Wyo. Bar No. 6-3224 Attorney at Law 910 Kearney Street Laramie, WY 82070 Phone: (307) 760-6268 Email: reed@zarslaw.com KAMALA D.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARTHA HAYES, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-cv-1237 MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Hon. Robert J. Jonker and THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case 4:17-cv-00031-BMM Document 232 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER

More information

THE WILDERNESS ACT. Public Law (16 U.S.C ) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 (As amended)

THE WILDERNESS ACT. Public Law (16 U.S.C ) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 (As amended) THE WILDERNESS ACT Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 (As amended) AN ACT To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good

More information

on taking action to further proposed projects prior to completion of the environmental review

on taking action to further proposed projects prior to completion of the environmental review on taking action to further proposed projects prior to completion of the environmental review process. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to enjoin Iron Range Resources from proceeding with this loan, and

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-02576 Document 1 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:16-cv-00021-BMM Document 34 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al. CV

More information

Case COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES. Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq Administrative

Case COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES. Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq Administrative colpy WINTER KING CA Bar No 237958 pro hac vice JOSEPH PETTA CA Bar No 6665 pro hac vi SHUTE MIHALY WEINBERGER LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco California 94102 Telephone 4 552-7272 Facsimile 4 552-5816

More information

Case 2:14-cv CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:14-cv CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:14-cv-00649-CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ATCHAFALAYA BASINKEEPER and LOUISIANA CRAWFISH No. 2:14-cv-00649-CJB-MBN PRODUCERS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION Case 6:16-cv-00046-SEH Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 8 MEGAN L. DISHONG Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney=s Office P.O. Box 8329 Missoula, MT 59807 105 E. Pine, 2 nd Floor Missoula, MT 59802

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C.

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C. Case 1:18-cv-00944 Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 8 2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). 3. This Court has authority to award injunctive relief

More information

Case 1:15-cv MSK Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6

Case 1:15-cv MSK Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 Case 1:15-cv-01303-MSK Document 9 Filed 06/22/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 Civil Action No. 15-cv-01303-MSK SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT

More information

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-00816 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 v. Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:15-cv WJM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:15-cv WJM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:15-cv-01775-WJM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ERIC VERLO; JANET MATZEN; and FULLY INFORMED

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORDER Case 5:17-cv-00887-HE Document 33 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) NO. CIV-17-887-HE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, No. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

More information

INTRODUCTION. advisement. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion filed

INTRODUCTION. advisement. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion filed Case 4:16-cv-00012-BLW Document 52 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO WILDERNESS WATCH, FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER, and WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT Plaintiffs,

More information

Courthouse News Service

Courthouse News Service Case 4:10-cv-00004-CWD Document 1 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 25 Paul C. EchoHawk (ISB # 5802) Matthew S. EchoHawk (ISB # 7048) ECHOHAWK LAW OFFICES 505 Pershing Avenue P.O. Box 6119 Pocatello, Idaho 83205-6119

More information

Case 2:08-cv EJL Document 97 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:08-cv EJL Document 97 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 12 Case 2:08-cv-00185-EJL Document 97 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 12 BRADLEY R. CAHOON bcahoon@swlaw.com Idaho Bar No. 8558 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple, No. 1200 Salt Lake City,

More information

SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975

SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975 As amended by: Senate Bill 1300, Nejedly - 1980 Statutes Assembly Bill 110, Areias - 1984 Statutes Senate Bill 593, Royce - 1985 Statutes Senate Bill 1261, Seymour

More information

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 11

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 11 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Jennifer L. Loda (CA Bar No. Center for Biological Diversity Broadway, Suite 00 Oakland, CA -0 Phone: (0 - Fax: (0-0 jloda@biologicaldiversity.org Brian Segee

More information

Case: 1:08-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/08 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 1:08-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/08 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHWOODS WILDERNESS RECOVERY, THE MICHIGAN NATURE ASSOCIATION, DOOR COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, THE HABITAT EDUCATION CENTER,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE and PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, Defendants. Case No.: 3:01-cv-978

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** *** Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-00-pgr Document Filed 0// Page of WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 0 The Navajo Nation, vs. Plaintiff, The United States Department of the Interior, et al.,

More information

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside Ordains as Follows:

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside Ordains as Follows: ORDINANCE NO. 555 (AS AMENDED THROUGH 555.19) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 555 IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975 The Board of Supervisors of

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 3:16-cv-00897-RDM Document 1 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAYNE LAND AND : MINERAL GROUP, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 378 N. Main Ave. Tucson, AZ 85702, v. Plaintiff, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1849 C Street NW, Room 3358

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO Leatra Harper 16555 Heron Lane Senecaville, Ohio 43780 and Steven Jansto 16555 Heron Lane Senecaville, Ohio 43780, Plaintiffs, Muskingum Watershed

More information

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-02837 Document 1 Filed 12/04/18 Page 1 of 14 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 1101 15 th Street NW, 11 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005, and

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BONNER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BONNER Electronically Filed 9/4/2018 11:30 AM First Judicial District, Bonner County Michael W. Rosedale, Clerk of the Court By: Kathleen Steen, Deputy Clerk Wendy J. Earle, ISB # 7821 WENDY EARLE LAW OFFICE,

More information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 1. This Settlement Agreement is entered into this 23d day. of December, 1998 (hereinafter the Effective Date ) among

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 1. This Settlement Agreement is entered into this 23d day. of December, 1998 (hereinafter the Effective Date ) among SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. This Settlement Agreement is entered into this 23d day of December, 1998 (hereinafter the Effective Date ) among Plaintiffs Patricia Bragg, James W. Weekley, Sibby R. Weekley, the

More information

Congressional Record -- Senate. Thursday, October 8, 1992 (Legislative day of Wednesday, September 30, 1992) 102nd Cong. 2nd Sess.

Congressional Record -- Senate. Thursday, October 8, 1992 (Legislative day of Wednesday, September 30, 1992) 102nd Cong. 2nd Sess. REFERENCE: Vol. 138 No. 144 Congressional Record -- Senate Thursday, October 8, 1992 (Legislative day of Wednesday, September 30, 1992) TITLE: COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT; WIRTH AMENDMENT NO. 3441 102nd Cong.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ) ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, ) 2000 P Street NW, Suite 240 ) Washington, D.C. 20036 ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action # ) v.

More information

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DISTRICT COURT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO P.O. Box 192, 307 Moffat Ave., Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 Plaintiff: TOWN OF WINTER PARK, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation; v. Defendants: CORNERSTONE

More information

2:11-cv PMD Date Filed 09/19/11 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

2:11-cv PMD Date Filed 09/19/11 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION 2:11-cv-02516-PMD Date Filed 09/19/11 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and SOUTH

More information

Applying for Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Facilities (Mexico)

Applying for Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Facilities (Mexico) Applying for Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Facilities (Mexico) Fact Sheet BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS January 21, 2009 Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Presidential Permits for

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Case 4:10-cv-01759 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 06/10/10 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION FOOD & WATER WATCH, INC. and KENNETH ABBOTT

More information

Case 3:15-cv BLW Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 5

Case 3:15-cv BLW Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 5 Case 3:15-cv-00169-BLW Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 5 Laurence ( Laird ) J. Lucas (ISB# 4733) Director of Litigation Advocates for the West P.O. Box 1612 Boise, ID 83701 208-342-7024 ext. 209 llucas@advocateswest.org

More information

BEFORE THE REGIONAL FORESTER, USDA FOREST SERVICE, NORTHERN REGION OF THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

BEFORE THE REGIONAL FORESTER, USDA FOREST SERVICE, NORTHERN REGION OF THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE BEFORE THE REGIONAL FORESTER, USDA FOREST SERVICE, NORTHERN REGION OF THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE Via e-mail: appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us In Re: Objection of the Draft Decision ) Notice

More information

COMMITTEE REPORTS. 106th Congress, 2d Session. Senate Report S. Rpt. 479 GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 2000

COMMITTEE REPORTS. 106th Congress, 2d Session. Senate Report S. Rpt. 479 GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 2000 COMMITTEE REPORTS 106th Congress, 2d Session Senate Report 106-479 106 S. Rpt. 479 GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK ACT OF 2000 DATE: October 3, 2000. Ordered to be printed NOTICE: [A> UPPERCASE TEXT WITHIN

More information

Subject: Opinion on Whether Trinity River Record of Decision is a Rule

Subject: Opinion on Whether Trinity River Record of Decision is a Rule United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 May 14, 2001 The Honorable Doug Ose Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs Committee on Government

More information

Case 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10 Case 4:14-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION EOG RESOURCES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

More information

Case 1:09-cv JLK Document 1 Filed 01/16/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:09-cv JLK Document 1 Filed 01/16/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:09-cv-00085-JLK Document 1 Filed 01/16/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, WESTERN COLORADO

More information

OYS~R?~~TORF'CwyTCOURT

OYS~R?~~TORF'CwyTCOURT Case 2:10-cv-00237-NDF Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 1 of 18 FILED OYS~R?~~TORF'CwyTCOURT OMING AUG 122011 Stephan Harris CI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Cheyenne er FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMES NOW the plaintiff, and alleges as follows:

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMES NOW the plaintiff, and alleges as follows: Case :-cv-00-tor Document Filed 0// THOMAS ZEILMAN, WSBA# 0 Law Offices of Thomas Zeilman 0 E. Yakima Ave., Suite P.O. Box Yakima, WA 0 TEL: (0-00 FAX: (0 - tzeilman@qwestoffice.net Attorney for Plaintiff

More information

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 15

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 15 Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California SUSAN S. FIERING Supervising Deputy Attorney General GEORGE TORGUN, State Bar No. 0 MARY S. THARIN, State Bar No.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 15-2047 Document: 01019415575 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex. rel. State Engineer Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

SMARA. Surface Mining & Reclamation Act Lawbook

SMARA. Surface Mining & Reclamation Act Lawbook SMARA SurfaceMining& ReclamationAct 2017-18 Lawbook 2011 2017.Allrightsreserved. Harrison,Temblador,Hungerford&JohnsonLLP Thisbookmaybereproducedordistributedinwholeorpart,withcreditto BradJohnson,Harrison,Temblador,Hungerford&JohnsonLLP.

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 2 of 10

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 2 of 10 Case 1:18-cv-00374 Document 1 Filed 02/19/18 Page 2 of 10 of Defendants, the United States Department of State ( DOS ), the United States Department of Justice ( DOJ ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation

More information

Case 2:12-cv LDG-GWF Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:12-cv LDG-GWF Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 11 Case :-cv-000-ldg-gwf Document Filed 0// Page of 0 IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General THOMAS K. SNODGRASS, Senior Attorney United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. Case No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. Case No. Marianne Dugan (OSB # 93256) FACAROS & DUGAN 485 E. 13th Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 484-4004 Fax no. (541) 686-2972 Internet e-mail address mdugan@ecoisp.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED

More information

Minard Run Oil Company v. United States Forest Service

Minard Run Oil Company v. United States Forest Service Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2011 Case Summaries Minard Run Oil Company v. United States Forest Service Bradley R. Jones University of Montana School of Law Follow this and additional

More information

Case 1:09-cv JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:09-cv JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 09-cv-00091-JLK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Case 5:17-cv-00887-HE Document 26 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE NATION ) OF OKLAHOMA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-17-887-HE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 MORGAN, LEWIS & Thomas F. Gede (SBN ) tom.gede@morganlewis.com Ella Foley Gannon (SBN ) ella.gannon@morganlewis.com Colin C. West (SBN 0) colin.west@morganlewis.com

More information

Case 4:11-cv SEH Document 76 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONT ANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

Case 4:11-cv SEH Document 76 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONT ANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:11-cv-00015-SEH Document 76 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 22 FILED JUN f 4 2013 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Cieri

More information

EPA S UNPRECEDENTED EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(C)

EPA S UNPRECEDENTED EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(C) EPA S UNPRECEDENTED EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404(C) I. Background Deidre G. Duncan Karma B. Brown On January 13, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for the first

More information

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 129 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 129 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 129 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 8 JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General MARISSA PIROPATO, Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural

More information

COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000

COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000 PUBLIC LAW 106 353 OCT. 24, 2000 COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA AND BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:46 Oct 31, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00353 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579

More information

Case 2:17-cv CM-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:17-cv CM-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:17-cv-02030-CM-JPO Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:17-cv-02030

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 0 THOMAS E. MONTGOMERY, County Counsel (SBN 0 County of San Diego By TIMOTHY M. WHITE, Senior Deputy (SBN 0 GEORGE J. KUNTHARA, Deputy (SBN 00 00 Pacific Highway, Room San Diego, California 0- Telephone:

More information

THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Continuing Legal Education Environmental Law 2017

THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Continuing Legal Education Environmental Law 2017 1 THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Continuing Legal Education Environmental Law 2017 Cosponsored by the Environmental Law Institute February 9-10, 2017 Washington, D.C. Executive Orders on the Keystone and Dakota

More information

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY. CLEAN WATER ACTION COUNCIL OF NORTHEAST WISCONSIN P.O. Box 9144 Green Bay, WI 54308;

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY. CLEAN WATER ACTION COUNCIL OF NORTHEAST WISCONSIN P.O. Box 9144 Green Bay, WI 54308; STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY CLEAN WATER ACTION COUNCIL OF NORTHEAST WISCONSIN P.O. Box 9144 Green Bay, WI 54308; FRIENDS OF THE CENTRAL SANDS P.O. Box 56 Coloma, WI 54930; MILWAUKEE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT. Plaintiff, National Wildlife Federation ( NWF ), alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT. Plaintiff, National Wildlife Federation ( NWF ), alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION David A. Bahr (Oregon Bar No. 90199) (Application for admission pro hac vice pending) Bahr Law Offices, P.C. davebahr@mindspring.com James G. Murphy (Vermont Fed. Bar No. 000-62-8938) National Wildlife

More information

Case 3:16-cv MEJ Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:16-cv MEJ Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-0-mej Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Andrea Gothing, SBN: 0 AGothing@RobinsKaplan.com Seth A. Northrop, SBN: 0 SNorthrup@RobinsKaplan.com Li Zhu, SBN: 00 LZhu@RobinsKaplan.com 0 W. El Camino

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 141, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO AND STATE OF COLORADO ON THE EXCEPTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 9:09-cv-00077-DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 16 Rebecca K. Smith P.O. Box 7584 Missoula, Montana 59807 (406 531-8133 (406 830-3085 FAX publicdefense@gmail.com James Jay Tutchton Tutchton

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and ALASKA PENINSULA CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, and STATE OF ALASKA, Intervenor-Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

More information