MN_07-2593_ Sierra Club v. Peters -(D. Minn. May 15, 1998)

8/7/2019 MN_07-2593_ Sierra Club v. Peters -(D. Minn. May 15, 1998)

1/37

1

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

DISTRICTOFMINNESOTA

________________________________________________________________

SIERRACLUBNORTHSTARCHAPTER,

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUMOFLAW&ORDER

CivilFileNo.072593(MJD/SRN)

MARYPETERS,SecretaryofTransportation;J.RICHARD

CAPKA,FederalHighway

Administrator;DIRK

KEMPTHORNE,Secretaryof

theInterior;andMARYBORNAR,

DirectoryoftheNationalPark

Service;

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________

BrianB.ONeill,ElizabethH.Schmiesing,KristenM.Gast,MichaelC.Soules,

andRichardA.Duncan,Faegre&Benson,LLP,CounselforPlaintiff.

FriedrichA.P.Siekert,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,CounselforDefendants.

_________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

ThismatterisbeforetheCourtonDefendantsMotiontoDismissforLack

Case 0:07-cv-02593-MJD-SRN Document 34 Filed 05/15/2008 Page 1 of 37


2/37

2

ofJurisdiction. [DocketNo.16] TheCourtheardoralargumentonFebruary22,

2008.

II. BACKGROUND

A. StatutoryFramework

1. NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)

TheNEPAisaproceduralstatutethatrequiresfederalagenciestoprepare

adetailedenvironmentalimpactstatement(EIS)formajorFederalactions

significantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment. 42U.S.C.

4332(2)(C). AnagencysEISshould[r]igorouslyexploreandobjectively

evaluateallreasonablealternatives,butneedonlybrieflydiscussthereasons

whyotheralternativeswereeliminatedfrommoredetailedstudy. 40C.F.R.

1502.14. Additionally,anEISshouldidentifythedirect,indirect,and

cumulativeimpactsofeachalternativethatisstudiedandconsidermitigation

measurestoreduceanyimpactsontheenvironment. 40C.F.R.1502.14,

1502.16,1508.7.

2.

Section

4(f)

of

the

Department

of

Transportation

Act

of

1966

Generally,underSection4(f),

theSecretarymayapproveatransportationprogramorproject...



3/37

3

requiringtheuseofpubliclyownedlandofapublicpark,recreation

area,orwildlifeandwaterfowlrefugeofnational,State,orlocal

significance,orlandofanhistoricsiteofnational,State,orlocal

significance...onlyif

(1)thereisnoprudentandfeasiblealternativetousingthatland;

and

(2)theprogramorprojectincludesallpossibleplanningtominimize

harmtothepark,recreationarea,wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuge,or

historicsiteresultingfromtheuse.

49U.S.C.303(c).

FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)regulationsrequirethat,for

projectssubjecttothesection4(f)requirement,the4(f)evaluationshalldocument

whythereisnofeasibleandprudentalternativeandtheplanningmeasures

takentominimizeharmtotheproperty. 49C.F.R.266.19(b)(4)(formerlyset

forthat23C.F.R.771.135(j)). Additionally,afinalEISorFindingofNo

SignificantImpact(FONSI)shoulddocumentcompliancewithapplicable

requirements,includeSection4(f). 23C.F.R.771.133.

3. WildandScenicRiversAct(WSRA)

The

WSRA

was

enacted

in

1968

to

preserve

the

free

flowing

condition

of

certainrivers. 16U.S.C.1271. TheWSRAcreatedanationalWildandScenic

RiverSystemanddevelopedaprocesssothatotherriverswithoutstandingly



4/37

4

remarkablescenic,recreational,geologic,fishandwildlife,historic,culturalor

othersimilarvalues,shallbepreservedinfreeflowingcondition. Id. The

WSRAidentifiestheriversintheSystem,setsforthaprocedurebywhich

additionalriversmaybeadded,andprovidesguidanceonhowthedesignated

riversshouldbemanaged. 16U.S.C.127187.

Thelocationofawildandscenicriversegmentdetermineswhetheritis

administeredbytheSecretaryoftheInterior,includingtheNationalParkService

(NPS),ortheSecretary ofAgriculture. 16U.S.C.1281(c),(d). The

administeringagencymustmanageeachdesignatedriversegmentinsuch

mannerastoprotectandenhancethevalueswhichcausedittobeincludedin

saidsystemwithout,insofarasisconsistenttherewith,limitingotherusesthatdo

notsubstantiallyinterferewithpublicuseandenjoymentofthesevalues. 16

U.S.C.1281(a). Becausedesignatedriversareusuallyadministeredbythe

SecretaryofAgriculturethroughtheUnitedStatesForestService,Departmentof

AgricultureregulationsgoverntheimplementationofWSRArequirements. 36

C.F.R.

297.1,

et

seq.

TheupperstretchoftheSt.CroixRiverwasoneoftheriversoriginally

includedintheWildandScenicRiverSystem. 16U.S.C.1274(a)(6). TheLower



5/37

5

St.Croixwaslateradded. 16U.S.C.1274(a)(9).

Section7providesthatnodepartmentoragencyoftheUnitedStatesshall

assistbyloan,grant,license,orotherwiseintheconstructionofanywater

resourcesprojectthatwouldhaveadirectandadverseeffectonthevaluesfor

whichsuchriverwasestablished,asdeterminedbytheSecretarychargedwith

itsadministration. 16U.S.C.1278(a). Thus,Section7requirestheNPSto

evaluatewhetherawaterresourcesproject...wouldhaveadirectandadverse

effectonariversvalues. Whenawaterresourcesprojectisfoundtohavea

directandadverseeffectonawildandscenicriver,theprojectcannotbe

authorizedorfundedabsentcongressionalintervention. Id.

Awaterresourcesprojectisanydam,waterconduit,reservoir,

powerhouse,transmissionline,orotherprojectworksundertheFederalPower

Act...orotherconstructionofdevelopmentswhichwouldaffectthefree

flowingcharacteristicsofaWildandScenicRiverorStudyRiver. 36C.F.R.

297.3.

Federal

assistance

means

any

assistance

by

an

authorizing

agency

including,butnotlimitedto,...[a]license,permit,orotherauthorization

grantedbytheCorpsofEngineers,DepartmentoftheArmy,pursuanttothe



6/37

6

RiversandHarborsActof1899(33U.S.C.401etseq.),andsection404ofthe

CleanWaterAct(33U.S.C.1344). Id.

4. OrganicActandGeneralAuthoritiesAct

TheNationalParkServiceOrganicActof1916(OrganicAct)established

theNPSandcreateditsauthorityoverthemaintenanceofnationalparks. 16

U.S.C.118f3. TheOrganicActprovidesthattheNPSmustregulatethe

useofnationalparksbymeansthatconformtotheirfundamentalpurpose,

namely:

toconservethesceneryandthenaturalandhistoricobjectsandthe

wildlifethereinandtoprovidefortheenjoymentofthesamein

suchmannerandbysuchmeansaswillleavethemunimpairedfor

theenjoymentoffuturegenerations.

16U.S.C.1.

CongresslaterpassedanamendmenttotheOrganicAct,knownasthe

GeneralAuthoritiesAct,whichprovides:

Theauthorizationofactivitiesshallbeconstruedandtheprotection,

management,andadministrationoftheseareasshallbeconducted

inlightofthehighpublicvalueandintegrityoftheNationalPark

System

and

shall

not

be

exercised

in

derogation

of

the

values

andpurposesforwhichthesevariousareashavebeenestablished,except

asmayhavebeenorshallbedirectlyandspecificallyprovidedby

Congress.



7/37

7

16U.S.C.1a1. TheNPShasconstruedthederogationstandardinthe

GeneralAuthoritiesActasareiterationofthenonimpairmentstandardsetforth

intheOrganicAct thatis,adutytoprohibittheimpairmentoftheintegrityof

parkresourcesandvalues. NPSManagementPolicies1.4.2(2006).

B. FactualBackground

1. ThePartiesandtheRiver

PlaintiffistheSierraClubNorthStarChapter(SierraClub). Defendants

areMaryPeters,SecretaryofTransportation;J.RichardCapka,theFederal

HighwayAdministrator;DirkKempthorne,SecretaryoftheInterior;andMary

Bornar,DirectoroftheNationalParkService. Thiscaserelatestoaproposed

bridgethatwouldcrosstheLowerSaintCroixRivernearOakParkHeights,

Minnesota.

TheLowerSt.CroixrunsalongtheMinnesotaWisconsinborder. (Compl.

2;Answer2.) TheCooperativeManagementPlan,adoptedin2001,governs

managementoftheLowerSt.CroixNationalScenicRiverway. (Compl.17;

Answer

17.)

The

Riverway

is

jointly

administered

by

the

NPS,

the

Minnesota

DepartmentofNaturalResources,andtheWisconsinDepartmentofNatural

Resources,whomanagetheRiverwaythroughtheLowerSt.CroixManagement



8/37

8

Commission. (Id.)

Currently,tenbridgestraversetheSt.Croix,includingtheStillwater

Bridge,betweenStillwater,Minnesota,andHoulton,Wisconsin. SierraClubN.

StarChapterv.Pea,1F.Supp.2d971,974(D.Minn.1998). TheStillwater

BridgeconnectsMinnesotaTrunkHighway36toWisconsinStateTrunk

Highway64. Id.

2. 1995BridgeProposal

TheFHWA,MinnesotaDepartmentofTransportation,andWisconsin

DepartmentofTransportationhavelongsoughttoconstructanewbridgeover

theriver. TheseeffortsresultedinafinalEISinApril1995,andarecordofthat

decisioninJuly1995. SierraClubN.StarChapter,1F.Supp.2dat974;(Pl.Ex.F.)

Thehighwaydepartmentspreferredalternativewasafourlanebridge

thatwouldcrosstheriveraboutonemilesouthofStillwater,Minnesota(1995

Proposal). Thetotallengthofthebridgewouldbesixmilesandtherewouldbe

eightbridgepiersintheriverbed. (Section7(a)Evaluation;WildandScenic

Rivers

Act;

Proposed

New

St.

Croix

River

Crossing

(1996

Section

7

Evaluation)

1314,Pl.Ex.B.) Becausethe1995Proposalwouldhaverequiredextensive

dredgeandfill,theCleanWaterActrequiredthetransportationagenciesto



9/37

9

obtainadredgeandfillpermitfromtheCorpsofEngineers(Corps). 33

U.S.C.1344;SierraClubN.StarChapter,1F.Supp.2dat975.

InJune1996,theSierraClubandanotherconservationgroupfiledsuitto

enjoinconstructionoftheproject. Amongotherclaims,SierraCluballegedthat

theDepartmentoftheInteriorfailedtodischargeitsobligationundertheWSRA

toanalyzewhetherthe1995ProposalsatisfiedthestandardsofSection7ofthe

WSRA. SierraClubN.StarChapter,1F.Supp.2dat975.

AfterSierraClubfiledsuit,theNPSconductedthenecessarySection7

evaluationonthe1995Proposal. BecausetheFHWAhadissuedaRecordof

Decision(ROD)beforetheNPScompletedaSection7evaluation,theFHWA

suspendeditsauthorizationofthe1995Proposalpendingtheoutcomeofthe

Section7process. Id.;(SeealsoPl.Ex.G.)

OnDecember27,1996,theNPSissueditsWSRASection7evaluation,

whichconcludedthatthe1995Proposalwouldhaveadirectandadverseimpact

ontheLowerSt.Croixsscenic,recreational,andbiologicalvalues. (See1996

Section

7

Evaluation.)

The

evaluation

particularly

criticized

the

potential

visual

impactoftheproposedbridge. (Id.at6263.) TheNPSsdetermination

prohibitedotherfederalagenciesfromissuingpermits,approvals,or



10/37

10

authorizationsforthe1995Project. 16U.S.C.1278(a).

AftertheSection7evaluationwasreleased,thefederalgovernment

withdrewitsauthorizationandfinancialsupportforthe1995Proposal. Inan

efforttosavetheproject,theMinnesotaandWisconsinDepartmentsof

Transportation(stateDOTs)intervenedinSierraClubslawsuitanddirectly

challengedtheSection7evaluation.

OnApril13,1998,theCourtrejectedthestateDOTsclaimsandupheldthe

NPSdetermination. Pea,1F.Supp.2dat983.

3. 2006BridgeProposal

OnMarch5,1998,theMidwestRegionoftheNPSissuedamemorandum

settingforththePolicyforintegratingNationalParkServicesection7

evaluationswiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActcomplianceprocessof

theprojectsponsor. (Ex.AtoHansonDecl.) Thepolicyallowsforpreparation

ofadraftSection7evaluationtobeincluded,ifpossible,intheDraftEIS

preparedbytheprojectsponsorandafinalSection7evaluationforinclusionin

the

final

EIS,

stating

that,

unless

the

project

changes

or

new

information

becomes

available,thedocumentrepresentsthelikelyoutcomeoftheSection7

determination,whichwillbemadeinresponsetotheCorpspublicnotice. (Id.at



11/37

11

7.) Seealso36C.F.R.297.6(Totheextentpracticable,impactsonWildand

ScenicRivervalueswillbeconsideredinthecontextofotherreviewprocedures

providedbylaw.).

Afterthe1998courtdecision,theFHWAandthestateDOTsbegan

workingtorevivetheproject. (Compl.72;Answer72.) InAugust2004,they

issuedasupplementaldraftEIS. (Id.) Thedocumentidentifiedfourbuild

alternatives. (Id.) AccordingtoSierraClub,AlternativeB1,wasnearlyidentical

tothe1995Proposal. (Compl.72.) AlternativeB1containedtwosub

alternatives:AlternativeB1aproposedclosingtheStillwaterliftbridgeto

vehiculartrafficandconvertingitintoanonmotorizedpathway,while

AlternativeB1bwouldleavetheliftbridgeopentolocaltraffic. (Id.;Answer

72.)

InOctober2005,theNPSissuedadraftSection7evaluationoftheproject.

(DraftSection7(a)Evaluation;WildandScenicRiversAct;St.CroixRiver

CrossingProject(October2005)(2005Section7Evaluation),Ex.BtoHanson

Decl.)

In

this

draft,

the

NPS

concluded

that,

given

the

proposed

mitigation

package,theproposedbridgesadverseeffectonthescenicandrecreational

valuesoftheLowerSt.Croixwouldbeadequatelyoffset. (Id.at5051.)



12/37

12

WhenthetransportationagenciesreleasedtheSupplementalFinalEISin

June2006,theychoseAlternativeB1aasthePreferredAlternative. (Compl.73;

Answer73.) Thisproposal(ProposedBridge)becametheSelected

AlternativewhentheFHWAissueditsRODinNovember2006. (Id.) The

ProposedBridgewouldbelocatedbetweenTrunkHighway36inStillwaterand

OakParkHeights,Minnesota,andStateTrunkHighway64inSt.Joseph,

Wisconsin,andwouldcreateacrossinginanewcorridor. (2005Section7

Evaluationat1,5.) TheProposedBridgewouldrequiredredgeandfillinthe

waterway,necessitatingapermitfromtheCorpsunderSection404oftheClean

WaterAct. (Id.at1819.) Additionally,theProposedBridgeisawaterresources

projectsubjecttoSection7(a)oftheWSRA. (Id.at1.) Theprojectwillrequire

federalassistanceintheformoffundingfromtheFHWAandpermitsfromthe

U.S.CoastGuardandtheCorps. (Id.)

Althoughthe2005Section7Evaluationwasadraft,itstated: Ifthescope

oftheprojectormitigationpackageshouldchangesubstantially,theNPSwill

need

to

reevaluate

the

project

under

Section

7(a).

If

there

is

no

substantial

change,thedraftdeterminationwillstand. (2005Section7Evaluationat5152.)

TheNPSidentifiedtwomaincontingenciesthatmustoccurinorderforthe2005



13/37

13

Section7Evaluationtobecomefinal. ThefirstcontingencywastheVisual

QualityPlanningProcess(id.at45,49,51),whichconcludedinJanuary2007(Pl.

Ex.D). ThesecondcontingencywasthattheNPSsoughtassurancesthatthe

mitigationitemsidentifiedinthe2005Section7Evaluationwouldbe

implemented. (Id.at5152.) TheNPSexplained:Inaddition,someofthe

mitigationitemsarenotyetassured. IfanyoftheidentifiedRiverwaymitigation

itemscannotbeimplemented,thetransportationagenciesshouldconsultwith

themanagingagenciestoidentifysuitablereplacementitems. (Id.at52.) Sierra

ClubassertsthatthisissuewasaddressedinApril2006,whentheNPS,FHWA,

stateDOTs,andMinnesotaandWisconsinDepartmentsofNaturalResources

enteredintoaMemorandumofUnderstandingfortheImplementationof

RiverwayMitigationItems. (Pl.Ex.E.)

SierraClubconcludesthat,becausetheProposedBridgedidnotchange

materiallybetweenthesupplementaldraftEISandtheROD,theNPSsdraft

determination[now]stand[s]. (2005Section7Evaluationat52.)

4. FHWANotice

InNovember2006,theFHWAissuedaRODontheSt.CroixRiver

CrossingProject. (Compl.73;Answer73.) OnDecember5,2006,theFHWA



14/37

14

publishedanoticeintheFederalRegisterstatingthatanumberoffederalagency

actionsrelatedtotheSt.CroixRiverCrossingProjectwerefinal. 71Fed.Reg.

70580. Thenoticestated:

Bythisnotice,theFHWAisadvisingthepublicoffinalagency

actionssubjectto23U.S.C.139(l)(1). Aclaimseekingjudicialreview

oftheFederalagencyactionsofthehighwayprojectwillbebarred

unlesstheclaimisfiledonorbeforeJune6,2007. IftheFederallaw

thatauthorizesjuridicalreviewofaclaimprovidesatimeperiodof

lessthan180daysforfilingsuchclaim,thenthatshortertimeperiod

stillapplies.

Id. 23U.S.C.139(l)(1)providesthataclaimmustbefiledwithin180daysof

publicationofnoticeintheFederalRegister. 180daysfromDecember5,2006

wasSunday,June3,2007,whichmeantthatthedeadlinesetbythestatutewas

Monday,June4,2007. Thenoticemisstatedthedeadlinebytwodays.

DefendantsassertthattheNPShasstillnotreleasedafinalSection7

evaluation;nordiditproduceanyotherWSRArelateddocumentsbeforethe

FHWApublishedtheROD.

C. ProceduralBackground

On

June

5,

2007,

Sierra

Club

filed

a

Complaint

against

Defendants

in

this

Court. TheComplaintalleges

CountI,ViolationsofWSRAandthe[AdministrativeProcedureAct]



15/37

15

[]APA[]bytheNPSandFHWAbasedontheclaimthatthe

ProposedBridgeprojectcreatesanewtransportationcorridor

withoutrestoringtheexistingcorridortonaturalconditions;

CountII,ViolationsoftheWSRAandtheAPAagainsttheNPSbasedontheclaimthattheNPSs2005Section7Evaluationwrongly

concludedthattheProposedBridgeprojectwouldnothaveadirect

andadverseeffectontheLowerSt.Croixsscenic,recreational,

wildlife,andothernaturalvalues;

CountIII,ViolationsoftheWSRAandtheAPAbytheNPS,inthe

alternativetoCountII,basedontheclaimthatiftheNPSs2005

Section7Evaluationwasnotfinalagencyaction,theNPSsfailureto

issueaSection7determinationrepresentsagencyactionunlawfullywithheldorunreasonablydelayed;

CountIV,ViolationsoftheWSRA,OrganicAct,GeneralAuthorities

Act,andtheAPAbytheNPSbasedontheclaimthattheNPSs

approvaloftheProposedBridgeiscontrarytothenondegradation

andnonimpairmentpoliciespromulgatedunderthosestatutes;

CountV,ViolationsoftheWSRAandtheAPAbytheNPSbasedon

theclaimthatNPSsgrantofanewrightofwayfortheProposed

bridgedoesnotprotectthequalitiesforwhichtheLowerSt.Croix

wasdesignatedawildandscenicriver;

CountVI,ViolationsoftheTransportationActandtheAPAbythe

FHWA,basedontheclaimthattheFHWAviolatedSection4(f)of

theTransportationActbyapprovingtheProposedBridgewithout

adequatelyconsideringalternativesthatcouldhaveavoideduseof

the

Lower

St.

Croix

Riverway

and

approving

a

project

that

does

notminimizeharmtotheRiverway;and

CountVII,ViolationsofNEPAandtheAPAbytheFHWAbasedon

theclaimthattheFHWAviolatedtheNEPAduetoinadequaciesin



16/37

16

theEISsandROD.

Defendantsnowmovetodismissthiscasebasedonlackofsubjectmatter

jurisdictionbecause1)astotheclaimsagainsttheFHWA,Plaintifffailedtofile

itsComplaintwithinthestatutory180daylimitationsperiod;and2)astoclaims

againsttheNPS,theComplaintdoesnotchallengeafinalagencyactionas

requiredbytheAPA.

III. DISCUSSION

A. StandardofReview

PlaintiffbearstheburdenofestablishingtheCourtssubjectmatter

jurisdiction. Jonesv.Gale,470F.3d1261,1265(8thCir.2006).

Inordertoproperlydismissforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction

underRule12(b)(1),thecomplaintmustbesuccessfullychallenged

onitsfaceoronthefactualtruthfulnessofitsaverments. Inafacial

challengetojurisdiction,allofthefactualallegationsconcerning

jurisdictionarepresumedtobetrueandthemotionissuccessfulif

theplaintifffailstoallegeanelementnecessaryforsubjectmatter

jurisdiction.

Titusv.Sullivan,4F.3d590,593(8thCir.1993)(citationsomitted). Inafactual

challenge,

the

Court

may

examine

competent

evidence

outside

of

the

complaint.

Id.

SovereignimmunityprotectstheUnitedStatesfrombeing



17/37

17

suedunlessCongresshasexpresslywaivedthegovernments

immunity. Adistrictcourtlacksjurisdictiontohearacaseagainst

theUnitedStatesunlessitssovereignimmunityhasbeenwaived,

andthecourtsjurisdictionislimitedbythescopeofthewaiver. [A]

waiverofthegovernmentssovereignimmunitywillbestrictlyconstrued,intermsofitsscope,infavorofthesovereign. Once

consenthasbeenexpresslyprovidedanditsscopedefined,however,

thewaiverofimmunityisliberallyconstruedwithintheparameters

oftheconsent.

Kaffenbergerv.UnitedStates,314F.3d944,950(8thCir.2003)(citationsomitted).

B. 180DayLimitation

1. Introduction

DefendantsassertthattheclaimsagainsttheFHWAarebarredbythe180

daystatuteoflimitationsandmustbedismissedwithprejudice.

a. StandardofReview

DefendantsstatuteoflimitationschallengetotheFHWAclaimsisbased

onthepleadingsand,therefore,presentsafacialchallengetojurisdiction. Ina

facialchallenge,thecourtrestrictsitselftothefaceofthepleadings,andthe

nonmovingpartyreceivesthesameprotectionsasitwoulddefendingagainsta

motion

brought

under

Rule

12(b)(6).

The

general

rule

is

that

a

complaint

should

notbedismissedunlessitappearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanproveno

setoffactsinsupportofhisclaimwhichwouldentitlehimtorelief. Osbornv.



18/37

18

UnitedStates,918F.2d724,729n.6(8thCir.1990)(citationsomitted).

b. ApplicableStatuteofLimitations

Notwithstandinganyotherprovisionoflaw,aclaimarisingunderFederallawseekingjudicialreviewofapermit,license,orapproval

issuedbyaFederalagencyforahighwayorpublictransportation

capitalprojectshallbebarredunlessitisfiledwithin180daysafter

publicationofanoticeintheFederalRegisterannouncingthatthe

permit,license,orapprovalisfinalpursuanttothelawunderwhich

theagencyactionistaken,unlessashortertimeisspecifiedinthe

Federallawpursuanttowhichjudicialreviewisallowed. Nothing

inthissubsectionshallcreatearighttojudicialrevieworplaceany

limitonfilingaclaimthatapersonhasviolatedthetermsofapermit,license,orapproval.

23U.S.C.139(l)(1). Underthestatute,SierraClubwasrequiredtofileits

Complaintwithin180daysoftheFHWAspublicationoffinalagencyactionby

Monday,June4,2007. Instead,SierraClubfileditsComplaintonTuesday,June

5,2007,onedaybeforethedeadlinestatedinthenoticeitself. Defendantsargue

thatSierraClubdidnotfileitsComplaintwithin180daysofthepublicationof

thenoticeoftheFHWAsfinalagencyaction,sothiscaseisbarred. SierraClub

assertsthatequitabletollingandequitableestoppelshouldbeappliedtosaveits

claims.

TheCourtmustfirstdeterminewhetherthisparticularstatuteof

limitationsissubjecttoequitablemodification. Ifso,theCourtmustthen



19/37

19

determineifthefactsallegedcansupportaclaimofequitablemodification.

2. WhethertheStatuteIsSubjecttoEquitableModification

a. Standard

TheSupremeCourtsetforththegeneralruleregardingtheapplicabilityof

equitabletollingtostatutesoflimitationsforclaimsagainstthegovernmentin

Irwinv.DepartmentofVeteransAffairs:[T]hesamerebuttablepresumptionof

equitabletollingapplicabletosuitsagainstprivatedefendantsshouldalsoapply

tosuitsagainsttheUnitedStates. Congress,ofcourse,mayprovideotherwiseif

itwishestodoso. 498U.S.89,9596(1990). AlthoughIrwinsgeneralrule

appearstoalludetoapossiblerequirementofaprivateanaloguebeforethe

presumptionapplies,theSupremeCourthasclarifiedthatareadilyidentifiable

privatelitigationequivalentorpreciseprivateanalogueisnotrequiredbefore

equitablemodificationcanbeapplied. Scarboroughv.Principi,541U.S.401,422

(2004).

Irwinsrebuttablepresumptionoftheavailabilityofequitabletollingcan

be

rebutted

in

two

main

ways:

by

[s]pecific

statutory

language,

or

by

a

definitiveearlierinterpretationofthestatute. JohnR.Sand&GravelCo.v.

UnitedStates,128S.Ct.750,756(2008).



20/37

20

Evenintheabsenceofanexplicitbar,congressionalintenttobarequitable

tollingcanbefoundinastatutesdetail,itstechnicallanguage,theiterationof

thelimitationsinbothproceduralandsubstantiveforms,andtheexplicitlisting

ofexceptions. UnitedStatesv.Brockamp,519U.S.347,352(1997)(addressing

thestatutorylimitationsperiodforfilingtaxrefundclaimswiththeIRS).

Thefactthatastatuteoflimitationsisconstruedtobejurisdictional,does

notforeclosetheavailabilityequitabletollingbecausethereisnoinconsistency

betweenviewingcompliancewiththestatuteoflimitationsasajurisdictional

prerequisiteandapplyingtheruleofequitabletolling. Ingramv.UnitedStates,

443F.3d956,961(8thCir.2006)(citationsomitted).

Finally,theCourtconcludesthatBowlesv.Russell,127S.Ct.2360(2007),

citedbyDefendants,isnotrelevant. ThemajorityopinioninBowlesdoesnotcite

toIrwinatall. Additionally,Bowlesaddressesthetimeperiodforfilingan

appeal,notastatuteoflimitations. TheSupremeCourthaslongheldthatthe

appealsperiodismandatoryandcannotnotbeenlarged. Bowles,127S.Ct.at

2363.

b. Analysis

TheCourtholdsthatequitablemodificationisavailableforthestatuteof



21/37

21

limitationssetforthin139(l)(1). UnderIrwin,Scarborough,andJohnR.,a

presumptioninfavoroftheavailabilityofequitabletollingappliesandno

privateanalogueisrequired. TheCourtbeginsitsanalysiswiththat

presumption.

Thereisnolanguagein139(l)(1)thatsuggeststhatCongressintendedto

foreclosetheavailabilityofequitabletolling. InIrwin,theSupremeCourt

addressedshallbebarredlanguage,likethewillbebarredlanguagein

139(l)(1),andstatedthatalthough[a]nargumentcanundoubtedlybemade

thatthe[shallbebarred]languageismorestringent[thanthestatuteatissuein

Irwin,]...wearenotpersuadedthatthedifferencebetweenthemisenoughto

manifestadifferentcongressionalintentwithrespecttotheavailabilityof

equitabletolling. Irwin,498U.S.at95. Therefore,theSupremeCourtexpressed

thattheshallbebarredlanguagedoesnotindicateCongresssintentthata

statuteshouldnotconformtothepresumptionthatitallowsequitabletolling

againstthegovernment.

The

Court

further

notes

that

Irwin

had

been

binding

law

for

fifteen

years

whenCongressenactedthestatuteatissueinthiscase,139(l)(1),without

statingthattollingwouldbeunavailable. SeeYoungv.UnitedStates,535U.S.



22/37

22

43,4950(2002)(Itishornbooklawthatlimitationsperiodsarecustomarily

subjecttoequitabletolling,unlesstollingwouldbeinconsistentwiththetextof

therelevantstatute. Congressmustbepresumedtodraftlimitationsperiodsin

lightofthisbackgroundprinciple.)(citing,e.g.,Irwin,498U.S.at95)(other

citationsomitted).

Inthiscase,neitherofthetwoexceptionstotherebuttablepresumptionin

favoroftollingmentionedinJohnR.existhere. Thereisnospecificstatutory

languagein139(l)(1)torebutthepresumptionandtheSupremeCourthasnot

providedapreviousinterpretationofthestatuteholdingthattollingcouldnot

apply. UnlikethetaxstatuteatissueinBrockamp,therearenoindicationsthat

Congressintendedtobarthepossibilityofequitablemodificationof139(l)(1).

Section139(l)(1)doesnotcontaintechnicallanguage;itdoesnotreiteratethe

limitationinbothproceduralandsubstantiveforms;anditdoesnotexplicitlylist

exceptionstothe180limit. Itisnotthetypeofcomplexstatute,suchasthetax

code,thatwouldsuggesttollingdoesnotapply. Forallthesereasons,theCourt

concludes

that

139(l)(1)

permits

equitable

tolling.

3. WhethertheFactsSupportEquitableModification

BecausetheCourtconcludesthat139(l)(1)doespermitequitable



23/37

23

modification,itmustnextdeterminewhetherthecircumstancesinthiscase

supporttheapplicationequitabletollingorequitableestoppel. SierraClub

assertsthatitisentitledtoequitabletollingbecauseitcompliedwiththeFHWAs

noticethatlegalchallengescouldbefiledonorbeforeJune6,2007,byfilingsuit

onJune5,2007.

a. StandardforEquitableTolling

Toequitablytollastatuteoflimitations,theplaintiffmustdemonstrate

(1)timelynotice,(2)lackofprejudicetothedefendant,and(3)reasonable,

goodfaithconductbytheplaintiff. Pecorarov.DioceseofRapidCity,435F.3d

870,875(8thCir.2006)(citationomitted). [T]heremedyofequitabletolling

traditionallyisreservedforcircumstancestrulybeyondthecontrolofthe

plaintiff,andshouldbeappliedwhereapartyactsdiligently,onlytofindhimself

caughtupinanarcaneproceduralsnare. Id.(citationsomitted). Equitable

tollingmayapplywhenaclaimanthasreceivedinadequatenotice,...[or]

whereaffirmativemisconductonthepartofthedefendantlulledtheplaintiff

into

inaction.

Warren

v.

Dept.

of

Army,

867

F.2d

1156,

1159

60

(8th

Cir.

1989)

(quotingBaldwinCountyWelcomeCtr.v.Brown,466U.S.147,151(1984)).

b. FHWAsConduct



24/37

24

TheCourtconcludesthatSierraClubsFHWAclaimsshouldbeequitably

tolledbecausetheFHWA,throughitspublicationofamisleadingFederal

Registernotice,lulledSierraClubintoinaction. SeealsoSchlueterv.

AnheuserBusch,Inc.,132F.3d455,45859,459n.4(8thCir.1998)(notingthat

whenanagencymisleadsacomplainantastocertainspecificpleading

requirements,aclaimantsfailuretoadheretothoserequirementsmaybe

excusable,andthus,equitabletollingmayapplyandholdingthattheEEOCs

mistakenbeliefsregardingthedatebywhichplaintiffsclaimwastobefiled,

whichwerecommunicatedtoplaintiff,justifiedequitabletolling);Andersonv.

UnisysCorp.,47F.3d302,30607(8thCir.1995)(notingthatwhenan

administrativeagencymisleadsacomplainant,particularlyonewhoiswithout

thebenefitofcounsel,equitabletollingmaybejustified)(footnoteandcitations

omitted).

Inthiscase,eveniftheFHWAsimplymadeamistakeinpublishingthe

incorrectdate,ithadafederallymandateddutytoreviewthisFederalRegister

Notice

and

ensure

that

any

errors

were

corrected.

1

C.F.R.

18.15(b)

(The

issuingagencyshallreviewpublisheddocumentsandnotifytheOfficerofthe

FederalRegisterofprintingerrorsfoundinpublisheddocuments.) Whenthe



25/37

25

agencywhomadethemisrepresentationisitselfthedefendant,itwouldbe

especiallyinequitabletoallowtheFHWAtoprofitfromitsownmistake.

c. SierraClubsDueDiligence

DefendantsassertthatSierraClubhadtimelynoticeofthedeadline

becausetheComplaintrecitesthattheFHWApublishedthenoticeonDecember

5,2006. (Compl.49.) TheyclaimSierraClubhasofferednoallegationto

supportitsduediligenceortodemonstratethatthelatefilingwasdueto

circumstancesoutsideofitscontrol. TheyconcludethatSierraClubwasawareof

theexistenceofanyclaimandoftheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,becausethe

RODmentionsthe180daylimitandthecorrectstatuteandtheComplaint

recountsthe180daystatuteoflimitationsandstatesthatitcommencedon

December5,2006. (Id.) However,theCourtnotesthattheComplaintalsoquotes

thenoticetoconcludethattheclaimhadtohavebeenfiledonorbeforeJune6,

2007. (Id.) SierraClubthenallegesthat,becauseitsComplaintwasfiledonor

beforeJune6,2007,asrequiredbytheFHWAnotice,thestatuteoflimitations

was

satisfied.

(Id.

50.)

TheCourtconcludesthattheSierraClubactedreasonablyandingood

faithbyfilingitslawsuitonorbeforeJune6,2007,asdirectedbytheFHWA.



26/37

26

SeeUnitedStatesv.$39,480.00inU.S.Currency,190F.Supp.2d929,932(W.D.

Tex.2002)(applyingequitabletollingtoGovernmentscivilforfeitureclaim

wheretheGovernmentsgoodfaithrelianceontheJuly27datestampcausedit

tomissthefilingdeadlinebyonedayand[t]heGovernmentmadeeveryeffort

tocomplywithboththespiritandletterofthelawandwasclearlynot

attemptingtofrustratethepurposeofthestatutorydeadline). Here,SierraClub

fileditsComplaintbeforethedeadlinepromulgatedbytheFHWAandonly

missedtheactualstatutorydeadlinebyoneday. TheCourtnotesthatthe

FHWA,itself,clearlyhaddifficultycalculatingthecorrectdateandpublished

andfailedtocorrectthatincorrectdate.

d. Prejudice

TheCourtconcludesthattheFHWAwouldnotbeprejudicedbytolling

becauseitwasexpectingcomplaintstobefiledonorbeforeJune6,2007,asit

explicitlystatedinthenotice. Additionally,theCourtcannotconceiveofhowa

onedaydelaycouldcauseprejudiceinthiscase.

e.

Conclusion

TheCourtconcludesthatequitabletollingappliesinthismatter. The

FHWAitselfcausedthedelaybynoticingtheincorrectdateforfiling;SierraClub



27/37

27

diligentlyfileditsComplaintbeforethedeadlinepromulgatedbytheFHWA,

andtheonedaydelaycanhardlybesaidtoprejudicetheFHWA,particularly

whenthefilingcamebeforethedeadlinetheFHWAannounced. Defendants

motiontodismissSierraClubsclaimsagainsttheFHWAisdenied.

C. RipenessofClaimsAgainsttheNPS

1. Introduction

DefendantsassertthatSierraClubsclaimsagainsttheNPSarenotripe.

SierraClubclaimsthatalloftheclaimsareripe. Alternatively,SierraClub

contendsthatifCountsI,II,IV,andVareunripe,CountIIIisstillripeforreview.

2. StandardofReview

DefendantsripenesschallengetotheNPSclaimspresentafactualattack

onsubjectmatterjurisdiction. Inafactualattack,thecourtconsidersmatters

outsidethepleadings,andthenonmovingpartydoesnothavethebenefitof

12(b)(6)safeguards. Osbornv.UnitedStates,918F.2d724,729n.6(8thCir.

1990)(citationsomitted).

The

Courts

jurisdiction

under

the

APA

is

confined

to

final

agency

action. 5U.S.C.704;SierraClubv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,446F.3d808,

813(8thCir.2006). AnagencysactionisfinalforpurposesoftheAPAif1)the



28/37

28

actionmark[s]theconsummationoftheagencysdecisionmakingprocess;and

2)theaction[is]onebywhichrightsorobligationshavebeendeterminedor

fromwhichlegalconsequenceswillflow. Bennettv.Spear,520U.S.154,17778

(1997)(citationsomitted). Whendeterminingwhetheraclaimisripe,courts

examinethestateofthecaseatthetimeofreview,notatthetimeoffiling.

Pub.WaterSupplyDist.No.8v.CityofKearney,401F.3d930,932(8thCir.2005)

(citationsomitted).

Abroadagencyprogramisnotafinalagencyactionwithinthe

meaningof5U.S.C.704. Norisanagencyreportthatservesmore

likeatentativerecommendationthanafinalandbinding

determination. Butiftheagencyhasissuedadefinitivestatementof

itsposition,determiningtherightsandobligationsoftheparties,

thatactionisfinalforpurposesofjudicialreviewdespitethe

possibilityoffurtherproceedingsintheagencytoresolvesubsidiary

issues.

SierraClub,446F.3dat813(citationsomitted).

3. RipenessofCountsI,II,IV,andV

DefendantsassertthatCountsI,II,IV,andVagainsttheNPSfailbecause

SierraClubhasnotchallengedanyfinalagencyactionandtheclaimsarenotripe

forjudicialreview.

a. Whetherthe2005Section7EvaluationWasthe

ConsummationoftheNPSsDecisionMakingProcess



29/37

29

Defendantsarguethatthe2005Section7(a)Evaluationisnotfinalbecause

itstatedthatitwillbereexaminedinlightoftheoutcomeoftheVisualQuality

PlanningProcess. (2005Section7Evaluationat51.) Additionally,theNPS

statedthatitwouldreevaluatetheproject[i]fthescopeoftheprojector

mitigationpackageshouldchangesubstantially. (Id.)

The2005Section7determinationspecifiedthat[t]heNPSwillprovide

commentsduringthereviewperiodforthepublicnoticethatapplicationhas

beenmadeforSection10/404permitsforthepreferredcrossingfromtheU.S.

ArmyCorpsofEngineers. (2005Section7Evaluationat51.) BecausetheCorps

hasnotyetpublishedpublicnoticeofaSection10/404permitapplicationrelated

totheproposedproject,Defendantsclaimthatthereviewperiodduringwhich

theNPSwillprovidefinalSection7commentsanddeterminationhasnotyet

commenced. Defendantsclaimthatthe2005Section7(a)Evaluationhasnolegal

consequencesuntilitisfinalizedintheNPSscommentstotheCorpsonthe

projectproposersSection404permitapplication. Atthattime,theNPSs

determination

regarding

the

projects

direct

and

adverse

effect

will

legally

and

practicallyaffectwhethertheCorpscanmoveforwardwithitsSection404

permit.



30/37

30

Althoughthe2005Section7Evaluationwaspurportedlyadraft,it

representedtheconsummationoftheagencysdecisionmakingprocess. Inthe

Evaluation,theNPSdeterminedthattheProposedBridge,whentakenalong

withitsmitigationpackagewouldnothaveadirectandadverseeffectonthe

scenicandrecreationalvaluesoftheLowerSt.Croix,solongasthemitigation

packagewasincorporatedintotheProposedBridgeproject. (2005Section7

Evaluationat51.) TheNPSissuednofurtherevaluationbeforetheFHWAs

releaseoftheROD. BecausetheRODauthorizedawaterresourcesproject

withinthemeaningofSection7,16U.S.C.1278(a),the2005Section7Evaluation

was,forallpracticalpurposes,theculminationoftheNPSsdecisionmaking

process.

AllofthecontingencieslistedbyDefendantshaveoccurred. First,the2005

Evaluationprovidedthatitwouldbereexaminedinlightoftheoutcomeofthe

VisualQualityPlanningProcess. (2005Section7Evaluationat51.) Thatprocess

endedmorethanoneyearago. (Pl.Ex.D.) Second,the2005Evaluationstated

the

NPSs

request

for

assurances

that

the

mitigation

measures

would

be

implemented. (2005Section7Evaluationat5152.) Thiscontingencywas

resolvedinApril2006,whentheNPS,FHWA,andseveralstateagenciesentered



31/37

31

intoaMemorandumofUnderstandingfortheImplementationofRiverway

MitigationItems. (Pl.Ex.E.) BecausetheVisualQualityPlanningProcesshas

beencompletedandthemitigationpackagehasbeenincorporatedintothe

ProposedBridgeproject,therearenoremainingcontingenciesandtheNPSs

draftdeterminationwillstand. (2005Section7Evaluationat52.) Thedraft

Section7EvaluationrepresentstheNPSsfinalwordonwhethertheProposed

BridgeviolatestheWSRA.

ThefactthattheNPSwillneedtoreevaluatetheprojectif,duetosome

unexpectedevent,thescopeoftheprojectormitigationpackagechanges

substantiallydoesnotmeanthatthe2005Section7Evaluationlacksfinality. See,

e.g.,Am.PetroleumInst.v.EPA,906F.2d729,73940(D.C.Cir.1990)([A]n

agencyalwaysretainsthepowertoreviseafinalrulethroughadditional

rulemaking. Ifthepossibilityofunforeseenamendmentsweresufficientto

renderanotherwisefitchallengeunripe,reviewcouldbedeterredindefinitely.).

Evenifthereisaminorcontingencythathasnotyetoccurred,thatwould

not

affect

the

legal

significance

of

the

2005

Section

7

Evaluation.

When

the

agencyhasissuedadefinitivestatementofitsposition,determiningtherights

andobligationsoftheparties,thatactionisfinalforpurposesofjudicialreview



32/37

32

despitethepossibilityoffurtherproceedingsintheagencytoresolvesubsidiary

issues. SierraClubv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,446F.3d808,813(8thCir.

2006)(citationomitted).

b. LegalConsequencesoftheNPSsActions

DefendantsassertthatnolegalconsequenceswillflowfromtheNPSs

Section7draftdeterminationuntilitbecomesfinalinthecontextoftheSection

404permitprocess.

HadtheNPSissuedanegativeSection7evaluation,asitdidforthe1995

Proposal,thennofurtherstepscouldbetakentowardconstructionofthebridge.

Instead,theFHWAreliedontheNPSs2005Section7Evaluationinissuingthe

RODinNovember2006. TheRODindisputablyhasconsequencesbecausethe

stateDOTscannowbeginimplementationoftheProposedBridgeproject. (Pl.

Ex.H.) Thelegalconsequencesofthe2005Section7Evaluationdemonstrateits

finalityforpurposesofjudicialreview. SeeNatlWildlifeFednv.Harvey,440F.

Supp.2d940,947(E.D.Ark.2006)(findingthatconditionalconcurrenceletter

by

Fish

and

Wildlife

Service

was

final

agency

action

because

letter

allowed

additionalconstructionandrepresentedanirreversiblecommitmentofagency

resources).



33/37

33

TheCourtrejectsDefendantsassertionthattheNPSneednotissuea

Section7determinationuntiltheCorpsconsiderswhethertoissueapermit

underSection404oftheCleanWaterAct. Section7oftheWSRAspurposeisto

preventtheconstructionofwaterresourcesprojectsthatwouldhaveadirect

andadverseeffectontheoutstandinglyremarkablevaluesofawildandscenic

river. 16U.S.C.1278(a). If,asDefendantsmaintain,theNPSsevaluationcould

bedelayeduntilthe404permittingprocess,thenthestateDOTscouldproceed

withonshoreconstructionactivitiesthatcouldseriouslyharmtheLowerSt.

Croix.

FortheWSRAtohaveanyteeth,theNPSsevaluationmustprecedethe

ROD. Nowthatthecontingenciesidentifiedinthe2005Section7Evaluation

havecometopass,thedocumentisfinal. Thus,theNPSsactionsalter[ed]the

legalregimetowhichtheactionagency[theFHWA]issubject. Bennett,520

U.S.at178.

c. TraditionalRipenessAnalysis

The

NPSs

actions

are

also

ripe

when

analyzed

under

the

standards

of

OhioForestryAssn,Inc.v.SierraClub:

Indecidingwhetheranagencysdecisionis,orisnot,ripefor



34/37

34

judicialreview,theCourthasexaminedboththefitnessoftheissues

forjudicialdecisionandthehardshiptothepartiesofwithholding

courtconsideration. Todosointhiscase,wemustconsider:(1)

whetherdelayedreviewwouldcausehardshiptotheplaintiffs;(2)

whetherjudicialinterventionwouldinappropriatelyinterferewithfurtheradministrativeaction;and(3)whetherthecourtswould

benefitfromfurtherfactualdevelopmentoftheissuespresented.

523U.S.726,733(1998)(citationomitted).

i. WhetherDelayedReviewWouldCause

HardshiptothePlaintiffs

AdelaywouldcauseserioushardshiptoSierraClub. Tenyearsago,Sierra

Clubsuccessfullychallengedtheconstructionofabridgethat,accordingtoSierra

Club,wouldhavedestroyedtheLowerSt.Croixsscenicandrecreational

qualities,buttheFHWAandstateDOTshavenowproposedabridgethatSierra

Clubclaimsisalmostidentical. TheNPSs2005Section7Evaluationclearedthe

wayfortheFHWAtoissueaROD,whichallowsthestateDOTstobegin

implementingsignificantportionsoftheproject. SierraClubarguesthatifit

mustwaituntiltheendoftheSection404permittingprocessbeforefilingsuit,

theLowerSt.Croixcouldbeirreparablydamagedbeforejudicialrevieweven

begins. Cf.E.Conn.CitizensActionGroupv.Dole,638F.Supp.1297,1299n.2

(D.Conn.1986)(holdingagencydecisionnotripewhentherewas



35/37

35

uncontrovertedevidencethatConnecticutDepartmentofTransportationwould

notbeginanyconstructionactivitiesuntilSection404permitwasobtained),affd

804F.2d804(2dCir.1986).

ii. WhetherJudicialInterventionWould

InappropriatelyInterferewithFurther

AdministrativeAction

TheCourtconcludesthatjudicialreviewwouldnotinappropriately

interferewithadministrativeactionbecausetheFHWAhasalreadyissuedits

RODandtheProposedBridgehasbeenauthorized. SeeS.C.WildlifeFedn,485

F.Supp.2dat671(findingripenessforreviewoffinalEISforfederalhighway

projectbecausetheprimarypolicysettingdocumentshavealreadybeen

produced). Withthecontingenciesresolved,the2005Section7Evaluationis

nowfinal. Thefactthatsomeadditionalpermitsmaybeneededforpartsofthe

projectdoesnotobviatethefinalityoftheROD. BecausetheFHWAhasalready

signedoffontheproject,theNPSnolongerhasanopportunitytocorrectits

ownmistakes. OhioForestry,523U.S.at735(citationomitted).

iii.

Whether

the

Court

Would

Benefit

from

FurtherFactualDevelopmentoftheIssuesPresented

Undoubtedly,therewouldbeevenmoreinformationbeforetheCourtif



36/37

36

theCourtwaitedtoactuntiltheCorpscompleteditsassessmentoftheprojects

effectsonwildandscenicrivervaluesaspartofitsSection404permitevaluation.

However,theprospectofadditionalinformationdoesnotdefeatripenessinthis

case. TheCourtwouldnotgreatlybenefitfromfurtherdevelopmentofthe

factualrecordbecauseSierraClubisaskingtheCourttoreviewasitespecific

projectthattheFHWAhasalreadyapproved.

CountsI,II,IV,andVagainsttheNPSareallripeforjudicialreview

becausetheNPShasissuedafinalagencyaction. TheCourthasfoundripeness

underboththeBennetttestandtheOhioForestrytest.

4. RipenessofCountIII

CountIII,whichchallengestheNPSsunlawfulwithholdingor

unreasonabledelayofanagencyaction,ismootgiventheCourtsconclusionthat

theNPShas,infact,issuedafinalagencyaction. Therefore,theCourtdismisses

CountIII.

Accordingly,

based

upon

the

files,

records,

and

proceedings

herein,ITIS

HEREBYORDEREDthat:

1. DefendantsMotiontoDismissforLackofJurisdiction [DocketNo.



37/37

16]isDENIED.

2. CountIIIisDISMISSED.

Dated: May15,2008 s/MichaelJ.Davis

JudgeMichaelJ.Davis

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt


Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	peter-wattson
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

MN_07-2593_ Sierra Club v. Peters -(D. Minn. May 15, 1998)

Documents