throbber
Case: 20-35412, 05/28/2021, ID: 12128149, DktEntry: 156, Page 1 of 5
`
`Nos. 20-35412, 20-35414, 20-35415, and 20-35432
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL, et al.,
`Plaintiffs/Appellees, v.
`U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al.,
`Defendants/Appellants,
`TC ENERGY CORPORATION, et al.,
`Intervenor-Defendants/Appellants, and
`STATE OF MONTANA,
`Intervenor-Defendants/Appellants.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Montana
`No. 4:19-cv-00044 (Hon. Brian Morris)
`
`MONTANA’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO VACATE
`
`AUSTIN KNUDSEN
`Montana Attorney General
`DAVID M.S. DEWHIRST
`Solicitor General
`JEREMIAH LANGSTON
`Assistant Attorney General
`215 North Sanders
`P.O. Box 201401
`Helena, MT 59620-1401
`406-444-2026
`david.dewhirst@mt.gov
`jeremiah.langston@mt.gov
`
`Attorneys for the State of Montana
`
`

`

`Case: 20-35412, 05/28/2021, ID: 12128149, DktEntry: 156, Page 2 of 5
`
`The Federal Appellants have filed a motion to vacate the district
`
`court’s orders below because these appeals are now moot. See ECF 150-
`
`1 at 6. Montana agrees that these cases are moot as a result of the 2021
`
`reissuance of Nationwide Permit 12 (“NWP 12”), see 86 Fed. Reg. 2744
`
`(Jan. 13, 2021), and agrees that, on that basis alone, the district court’s
`
`decisions should be vacated and the cases remanded with instructions to
`
`dismiss.
`
`In the proceedings below, the district court found that the U.S.
`
`Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) 2017 reissuance of NWP 12 failed to
`
`conduct Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) programmatic consultations.
`
`1-ER-47–59. While the Corps maintains that nationwide ESA § 7 pro-
`
`grammatic consultations for nationwide permits are voluntary, id. at
`
`2848, the Corps did conduct a biological assessment of the proposed reis-
`
`suance:
`
`In the biological assessment prepared by the Corps for this
`rulemaking activity, the Corps presents a substantial amount
`of data to demonstrate the actions it takes to comply with sec-
`tion 7 of the ESA, including the number of formal and infor-
`mal section 7 consultations it conducts with the [U.S. Fish and
`Wildlife Service] and [National Marine Fisheries Service] and
`the number of regional programmatic consultations and other
`tools it has developed with the FWS and NMFS.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 20-35412, 05/28/2021, ID: 12128149, DktEntry: 156, Page 3 of 5
`
`Id. at 2849; see also 82 Fed. Reg. 1860, 1956, 1944 (Jan. 6, 2017) (stating
`
`that § 7 ESA programmatic consultations, including biological assess-
`
`ments, were not necessary in the 2017 reissuance of nationwide permits).
`
`As Montana pointed out in its reply brief, Plaintiffs’ (collectively,
`
`“NPRC”) ESA concerns were exclusive to the Keystone XL Pipeline and
`
`regional at best. See ECF 138 at 8–9 (explaining that NPRC only articu-
`
`lated a concern with the American burring beetle and pallid sturgeon in
`
`specific geographic areas allegedly impacted by Keystone). Thus, the
`
`Corps’ 2021 reissuance of NWP 12—and its attendant regional consulta-
`
`tions—are sufficient to moot these appeals. American Rivers v. National
`
`Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997) (“If an event
`
`occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is
`
`moot and must be dismissed.”); see, e.g., Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bu-
`
`reau of Reclamation, 691 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2012) (“the issuance
`
`of a superseding [Biological Opinion] moots issues on appeal relating to
`
`the preceding BiOp.”). Additionally, when an appeal is mooted, the ap-
`
`propriate posture is to vacate the decision below. See ECF 150-1 at 23–
`
`24 (explaining how the Munsingwear doctrine requires such relief here).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 20-35412, 05/28/2021, ID: 12128149, DktEntry: 156, Page 4 of 5
`
`Accordingly, Montana supports the Federal Appellants’ motion to
`
`vacate decisions below.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 28th day of May, 2021.
`
`AUSTIN KNUDSEN
`Montana Attorney General
`215 North Sanders
`P.O. Box 201401
`Helena, MT 59620-1401
`
`By: /s/Jeremiah Langston
`JEREMIAH LANGSTON
`Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 20-35412, 05/28/2021, ID: 12128149, DktEntry: 156, Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I hereby certify:
`
`1.
`
`This document complies with the length limitation of Circuit
`
`Rule 27-1(1)(d) because it does not exceed 5,200 words.
`
`2.
`
`This document complies with the typeface requirements of
`
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-style require-
`
`ments of Rule 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally
`
`spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Century Schoolbook
`
`font.
`
`
`
`/s/Jeremiah Langston
`JEREMIAH LANGSTON
`Counsel for State of Montana
`
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket