Jones v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 6:10-cv-06427

Plaintiffs challenge NMFS and the Army Corps decisions approving Oregon Resources Corporation's chromite mining permits in Coos County under the APA, ESA, CWA, and NEPA.
The four proposed mine sites are on elevated beach terraces within the Three-mile and Five-mile Creeks watersheds, crossing wetlands and tributaries.
The Corps issued a Section 404 permit (May 8, 2008 reviewed; finalized March 2, 2010) authorizing discharge of fill with mitigation creating wetlands and restoring streams, preceded by a NEPA EA/FONSI.
NMFS conducted ESA consultation and found the mining would not likely jeopardize the OC Coho, incorporating long-term monitoring and mitigation into the permit; DEQ recommendations were incorporated.
ORC relied on the permit to secure contracts and financing for construction; plaintiffs allege Cr6 groundwater risks and potential environmental harms, seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction.
The court applies APA review to ESA/NEPA/CWA decisions and DENIES the requested TRO/preliminary injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ESA: likelihood of jeopardy to OC Coho	Olenec argues NMFS ignored Cr6 risks and habitat effects	NMFS used best available data; site conditions mitigate Cr6	Not likely to jeopardize; agency deference applied
NEPA: adequacy of the hard look and FONSI	Plaintiffs claim inadequate analysis of cumulative and groundwater impacts	EA/FONSI considered relevant data and incorporated mitigation	Reasonable NEPA analysis; no obligation for an EIS here
CWA: alternatives and mitigation analysis	Alternative sites ignored due to economic considerations	Excludes economically unviable alternatives consistent with project purpose	Properly rejected alternatives; analysis within statutory bounds
Irreparable harm and public interest	Harm to wetlands, water quality, and Coho warrants injunction	Harm mitigated by monitoring/mitigation; public interest favors permitting activity	Injunction denied; harms not irreparable or outweighs public interests

Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (court defers to agency expertise on technical matters)
Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard and four-factor test)
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (highly deferential review of agency scientific judgments)
Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 2005) (hard look and contending data are not automatic indicators of controversy or uncertainty)
Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 222 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (reliance on substantial data supports agency decisions)
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009) (Winter framework applied to public-interest balance in injunctions)