Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 30, 200807-35506California8,479 words

Opinion

Opinion

GOULD, J.

introduction of reclamation requirements, any new placer mining projects will result in remediation of historic mining impacts.

The panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Kleinfeld and Gould voted to deny 4636 BERING STRAIT CITIZENS v. USACE the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Fletcher has so recommended. The petition for en banc rehearing has been circulated to the full court, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b). The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further petitions for rehear- ing or rehearing en banc will be accepted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns a permit issued to Defendant- Appellee Alaska Gold Company (“AGC”), by Defendant- Appellee Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”) for a major gold-mining project near Nome, Alaska. The permit was issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1344, which authorizes the Corps to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters of the United States.

The project,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.