Northwest Environmental Advocates v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
||Northwest Environmental Advocates
||United States Environmental Protection Agency
||September 27, 2012
||US District Court for the District of Oregon
||Portland (3) Office
||John V. Acosta
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|December 12, 2018
OPINION and ORDER - For the reasons stated, with respect to the TMDLs relevant to Claim One, the Court directs the parties to confer and, no later than March 11, 2019, to submit to the Court a single, joint status report that sets out the parties pro posal(s) for a schedule by which the State and EPA will establish replacement TMDLs that implement the applicable, biologically-based criteria. Inaddition, the Court directs EPA to disapprove the TMDLs relevant to Claim One, subject to the Courts wil lingness to consider a stay of that order pursuant to the above-referenced schedule for issuing replacement TMDLs. With respect to Claim Two, consistent with § 303(c)(2)(B) the Court directs EPA to review the TMDLs covered by Claim Two but not a lready included in Claim One within 60 daysof entry of judgment in this case. If EPA determines the NCC as contained in those TMDLsshould be disapproved, it must do so within 90 days of entry of judgment. In the alternative, as described more fully a bove, if the State and EPA agree to include the TMDLs included in Claim Two in the procedure outlined for Claim One, the Court will relieve EPA of its § 303(c) review obligations and instead direct the State and EPA to disapprove the Claim Two T MDLs, but stay that order for a period to be determined by a schedule set by the Court after conferral among theparties. With respect to Plaintiffs ESA claims (Claims Six and Seven), the Court finds the remedy on Claim One will redress the violation that Plaintiff established in Claims Six and Seven. Finally, the Court adheres to its order directing the State and EPA to establish the revised Willamette mercury TMDL and Klamath temperature TMDL no later than April 11, 2019. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of December, 2018, by United States District Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (peg)
|April 11, 2017
ORDER: The Court ADOPTS IN PART Magistrate Judge Acostas Summary Judgment F&R 132 . NWEAs motion 78 for summary judgment is granted with regard to Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, with the exception of NWEAs Claim 1, 6, and 7, based on TMDLs approve d by the EPA prior to September 27, 2006; and denied as moot with regard to Claims 3, 4, and 5. The EPAs cross motion 88 for summary judgment and Intervenor-Defendants cross motions 92 , 95 , and 96 for summary judgment joining in the EPAs cros s-motion, are denied in all respectsexcept as to NWEAs Claim 1, 6, and 7, to the extent it is based on TMDLs approved by the EPA prior to September 27, 2006. The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acostas Voluntary Remand F&R 133 . The EPAs motion 89 f or voluntary remand is granted. During the remand period, the Willamette Mercury TMDL should be left in place. The EPA and Oregon must submit a revised Willamette mercury TMDL and Klamath temperature TMDL within two years of the date below. Plaintiff shall prepare an appropriate Judgment consistent with this Order, and after conferring with counsel for Defendants and Intervenors, shall submit it to the Court for signature within 30 days of the date below. If the parties cannot agree on a Judgment, they should notify this Courts Courtroom Deputy, who will schedule a telephone conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 4/11/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (ecp)
|March 19, 2014
ORDER - TFT's Motion to Intervene 58 is GRANTED. TFT shall follow the same briefing schedule as the other intervenor-defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 19th day of March, 2014, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?