This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
National Environmental Policy Act
Mining Law

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Klamath Forest Alliance v. Russell (Dave) Hays, District Ranger of the Salmon River/Scott River Ranger District, United States Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, Chief of the United States Forest Service

Published: Oct. 30, 2014 | Result Date: Sep. 29, 2014 |

Case number: 2:12-cv-01676-TLN-CMK Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Courtney B. Johnson
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Ralph O. Bloemers
(Crag Law Center)

Rachel M. Fazio
(John Muir Project)


Defendant

John Tustin


Facts

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Klamath Forest Alliance filed a complaint against Russell Hays, District Ranger of the Salmon River/Scott River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service, and Tom Tidwell, Chief of the USFS, concerning defendants' approval of the High Bar Mining Project. The project was a gold mining operation located in the Salmon River watershed in Northern California.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendants' approval of the project violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the 1872 Mining Law, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs requested this court to vacate the decision documents related to the project, and a declaration that defendants' approval of the project violated the relevant rules and regulations. Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin the project from moving forward. Additionally, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the approval complied with all relevant rules and regulations. Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Result

The court ultimately granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 22, 2012.


#127685

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390