Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_15-cv-00021/USCOURTS-akd-3_15-cv-00021-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

SCOTT W. WALTHER, )

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

)

and )

)

PIONEER RESERVE, LLC, )

)

Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff, )

) 

vs. ) 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )

)

Defendants, )

) No. 3:15-cv-0021-HRH

and )

) 

THE SU-KNIK MITIGATION BANK and )

SU-KNIK ENVIRONMENTS, LLC, ) 

) 

Intervenor-Defendants. )

__________________________________________) 

O R D E R

Motions to Dismiss and Other Pending Motions

Defendant United States of America, on behalf of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,

moves to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.1 This motion is opposed.2Intervenor1Docket No. 59. 

2Docket No. 65. 

-1-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 16
defendants also move to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.3 This motion is opposed.4

Oral argument was requested and has been heard on the motions to dismiss. 

Alsopending in this case are plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,5 Pioneer

Reserve LLC’s motion to intervene,6 plaintiff’s motion to supplement the administrative

record,7

 and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.8

After hearing oral argument, the court granted the motions to dismiss and denied

all of the other pending motions, except for plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. This

written order provides a more detailed explanation for the court’s rulings as well as

disposes of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Background

Plaintiff is Scott W. Walther. Defendants are the United States of America and

Christopher D. Lestochi, Colonel, District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Alaska District. Intervenor-defendants are The Su-Knik Mitigation Bank and Su-Knik

Environments, LLC. 

3Docket No. 60. 

4Docket No. 66. 

5Docket No. 5. 

6Docket No. 75. 

7Docket No. 87. 

8Docket No. 88. 

-2-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 16
“Under the [Clean Water Act (CWA)], ‘any discharge of dredged or fill materials

into ... waters of the United States [] is forbidden unless authorized by a permit issued by

the Corps of Engineers pursuant to’ Section 404 of the CWA[.]” Fairbanks N. Star Borough

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586, 589 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Leslie Salt Co.

v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1391 (9th Cir. 1995)). “In issuing § 404 permits, the Corps

must comply with the § 404(b)(1) Guidelines..., which are promulgated by the EPA

pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)(1), and incorporated by the Corps into its own regulations.” 

Kentuckians for Commonwealth v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 963 F. Supp. 2d 670, 676

(W.D. Ky. 2013). “Under the Corps’ CWA Guidelines, a § 404 permit cannot issue ‘unless

appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse

impacts of the discharge [of fill material] on the aquatic ecosystem.’” Ohio Valley

Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 202 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting

40 C.F.R. § 230.10(d)). The EPA and Corps have made “‘no overall net loss’ the goal of the

§ 404 regulatory program and agree that mitigation has three components: avoidance,

minimization, and compensatory mitigation.” Id. (citation and footnote omitted). 

“Avoidance is defined as the selection of the least environmentally damaging practical

alternative.” Id. “Minimization is achieved through practicable project modifications and

permit conditions that minimize adverse impacts.” Id. “Finally, compensatory mitigation

is used where appropriate to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts after all

-3-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 16
avoidance and minimization measures have been taken.” Id. 

“On March 31, 2008, the EPA and the Corps issued revised regulations governing

compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams, and other waters

of the United States under CWA Section 404....” Kentuckians for Commonwealth, 963 F.

Supp. 2d at 676. Plaintiff refers to these regulations as the “Final Rule.” 

When evaluating compensatorymitigation options, the district

engineer will consider what would be environmentally

preferable. In making this determination, the district engineer

must assess the likelihood for ecological success and

sustainability, the location of the compensation site relative to

the impact site and their significance within the watershed, and

the costs of the compensatory mitigation project.

33 C.F.R. § 332.3(a)(1). Permissible mitigation methods include restoration, enhancement,

establishment, and preservation. Id. § 332.3(a)(2). When preservation is used as the

method of mitigation, certain criteria must be met, including that the resources to be

preserved must be “under threat of destruction or adverse modifications[.]” Id. §

332.3(h)(iv). 

Compensatory mitigation can be accomplished in one of three ways: 1) mitigation

banks, 2) in-lieu fee programs, or 3) permittee-responsible mitigation, with the use of

mitigation banks being the preferred method. Id. § 332.3(b). However, this preference

“does not override a district engineer’s judgment as to what constitutes the most

appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation based on consideration of

-4-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 16
case-specific circumstances.” 73 Fed. Reg. 19594, 19,628 (April 10, 2008). 

“A mitigation bank is an offset of preserved and restored wetlands used to

compensate for the environmental impact of more destructive land use.” Hearts Bluff

Game Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 669 F.3d 1326, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Landowners can

apply for mitigation banking instruments to participate in the program, and then can sell

credits under the instrument to developers to offset environmentally destructive projects

covered by section 404 permits under the Clean Water Act.” Id. “The Corps is in charge

of the mitigation banking program and it has issued regulations to establish procedures for

granting instruments for mitigation banks.” Id.

Any private or public entity (referred to as a sponsor) may propose to establish a

mitigation bank. 33 C.F.R. § 332.2. “The district engineer will establish an Interagency

Review Team (IRT) to review documentation for the establishment and management of

mitigation banks....” Id. § 332.8(b)(1). The IRT is composed of federal, tribal, state and/or

local regulatory and resource agency representatives. Id. at § 332.8(b)(2). The “[m]itigation

banking instrument[MBI]” is the “legaldocumentfor the establishment, operation, and use

of a mitigation bank.” Id. § 332.2. The sponsor must propose properties for the mitigation

bank site, which are then incorporated into the MBI. Id. § 332.8(d)(1). 

Plaintiff alleges that he purchased two parcels of property (the Seldon and Edgerton

parcels) and that beginning in or around 2006, the Corps encouraged him to turn this

-5-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 16
property into a mitigation bank.9 Plaintiff alleges that he formed a limited liability

company, Pioneer Reserve, LLC, which “entered into a contract ... with the Corps” and this

contract “created a wetland mitigation bank known as the Pioneer Reserve Mitigation

Bank....”10“Following full execution of the Contract, [plaintiff] recorded perpetual

conservation easements on his Land and paid ... $140,000[] to a third-party non-profit

organization, as a ‘financial assurance’ to ensure Pioneer’s ongoing performance underthe

Contract.”11 After plaintiff “encumbered his Land with perpetual conservation easements,

... Pioneer was awarded wetland mitigation credits that it could sell to CWA § 404

permittees in order to satisfy their compensatory mitigation needs.”12 Although plaintiff

alleged that he “remained the owner of the encumbered Land,”13 his counsel clarified at

oral argument that title to the land is held by Pioneer Reserve. 

Plaintiff alleges that on February 5, 2009, the Mat-Su Borough and the Corps

“entered into a mitigation banking agreement ... forming [the] Su-Knik” mitigation bank.14

“The Corps ... awarded Su-Knik’s banking credits based on the Borough recording a

9Amended Complaint at 5, ¶¶ 24-28, Docket No. 49. 

10

Id. at 6, ¶ 33-34. 

11

Id. at ¶ 35. 

12

Id. at ¶ 37. 

13

Id. at ¶ 38. 

14

Id. at 9, ¶¶ 61-62. 

-6-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 6 of 16
conservation easement on a Borough-owned property known as the Fish Creek Parcel.”15

Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Fish Creek Parcel is an inaccessible Black Spruce swamp, with

no viable economic use” and that it “is comprised of undevelopable, high quality

wetlands.”16 Plaintiff alleges that Su-Knik’s banking credits are not valid because they are

“based solely on the Borough’s preservation of the non-threatened Fish Creek Parcel....”17

Plaintiff alleges that in September 2012, the Corps issued a § 404 permit to the

Alaska Railroad Corporation(ARRC) which required ARRC to buy mitigation credits from

Su-Knik.18 Plaintiff alleges that the Corps has issued seventeen § 404 permits for which

compensatorymitigationwasprovided, at least in part, from the Su-Knik mitigationbank.

19

Plaintiff alleges that the Corps required the ARRC to purchase mitigation credits from SuKnik even though 

(i) Pioneer’s wetland banking credits were the highest ranked

ecologically preferable alternative source of compensatory

mitigation, (ii) the ARRC’s permitted impacts to [waters of the

United States] occurred in Pioneer’s service area, and (iii)

Pioneer’s service area was the only mitigation bank service

area that encompassed the ARRC’s permitted impacts to

15

Id. at 10, ¶ 66. 

16

Id. at ¶¶ 72-73. 

17

Id. at 11, ¶ 76. 

18

Id. at 10, ¶ 65. 

19

Id. at 11, ¶ 79. 

-7-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 7 of 16
[waters of the United States.]20

On February 10, 2015, plaintiff commenced this action. In his amended complaint,

plaintiff asserts a claim under the “citizen suit” provision in Section 505(a)(2) of the CWA

and claims under the APA.21 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff

requests that the court declare that the Corps violated the Final Rule when it awarded

mitigation banking credits to Su-Knik.22 Plaintiff also requests that the court declare that

the “CWA § 404 permits that were issued with compensatory mitigation requirements

being satisfied by the permittee(s) purchasing banking credits fromSu-Knik were unlawful

in that they were issued in violation of the CWA and the Final Rule[.]”23 Plaintiff requests

that the Corps be enjoined “from requiring, or authorizing any CWA § 404 permittee to

satisfy its compensatory mitigation requirement by purchasing mitigation banking credits

from Su-Knik until such time as Su-Knik is awarded mitigation banking credits in full

compliance with the requirements of the Final Rule[.]”24 And, plaintiff requests that the

court “order the Corps to comply with the Final Rule and take steps to ensure that the

20

Id. at 7, ¶ 40. 

21Plaintiff appears to be challenging two final agency actions, each which would be

a separate APA claim. 

22Amended Complaint at 13, Docket No. 49. 

23

Id. at 12. 

24

Id.

-8-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 8 of 16
Borough, as sponsor of the Su-Knik, provides alternative compensatory mitigation, in

compliance with the Final Rule, to support the award of all banking credits that Su-Knik

has already sold[.]”25

Defendant the United States and intervenor-defendants (referred to colletively as

“defendants” herein) now move to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants move to

dismiss plaintiff’s CWA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “A Rule 12(b)(1)

jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d

1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, defendants are making a facial attack. “In a facial attack,

the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their

face to invoke federal jurisdiction.“ Id. “The district court resolves a facial attack as it

would a motion to dismiss underRule 12(b)(6): Accepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true

and drawing all reasonable inferences inthe plaintiff’s favor, the court determines whether

the allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.” Leite v.

Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Defendants argue that the court lacks subject matterjurisdiction because the United

States has not waived its sovereign immunity. “As a sovereign, the United States is

25

Id.

-9-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 9 of 16
immune from suit unless it waives its immunity.” Shirk v. United States ex rel. Dep’t of

Interior, 773 F.3d 999, 1003 (9th Cir. 2014). “Federal agencies and instrumentalities, as well

as federal employees acting in their official capacities within their authority, are similarly

immune from suit.” South Delta Water Agency v. United States, Dep’t of Interior, Bureau

of Reclamation, 767 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1985). “Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity,

courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over cases against the [federal] government.”

Kaiser v. Blue Cross of Cal., 347 F.3d 1107, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Plaintiff alleges that this court has jurisdiction of his CWA claim pursuant to Section

505(a)(2) of the CWA, which provides, in pertinent part, that: 

any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf–

* * *

(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of

the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this

chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator. 

33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2). 

The CWA states that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this chapter called

‘Administrator’) shall administerthis chapter.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(d). Plaintiff contends that

the “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided” language means that the Administrator

may be someone otherthan the Administrator of the EPA. Plaintiff argues that because the

-10-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 10 of 16
CWA expressly provides that the Corps administers the § 404 permitting program, the

Corps is the Administratorfor purposes of Section 505(a)(2) claims involving § 404 permits.

Plaintiff cites to National Wildlife Federation v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313 (4th Cir. 1988),

in support of his argument. There, the plaintiff brought Section 505(a)(2) claims against

both the EPA and the Corps. Id. at 314-15. On appeal, the government argued that the

district court had lacked subject matterjurisdiction because “the NWF’s suit did not qualify

as a citizen suit under section 1365(a)(2) because the NWF challenged the Corps’ exercise

of discretion with respect to wetlands and not the EPA administrator’s failure to carry out

a mandatory duty.” Id. at 315. The court rejected this argument, explaining that 

Sections 404 and 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§

1344 and 1365(a) must be read together. Section 1344 authorizes the Secretary of the Army acting through the Army Corps

of Engineers to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill

material into United States waters, including wetlands. The

Corps’ permit decisions must be based on EPA guidelines.

Section 1344(c) authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to

block or override a Corps’ permit decision. Section 1365(a)(2)

authorizes any citizen to commence a civil action “against the

Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is

not discretionary with the Administrator.”

* * * 

Congress cannot have intended to allow citizens to challenge

erroneous wetlands determinationswhentheEPAAdministrator makes them but to prohibit such challenges when the Corps

makes the determination and the EPA fails to exert its authority overthe Corps’ determination. Section 1365(a)(2) should be

-11-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 11 of 16
interpreted in conjunction with Civil Procedure Rule 20

(joinder) to allow citizens to sue the Administrator and join the

Corps when the Corps abdicates its responsibility to make

reasoned wetlands determinations and the Administratorfails

to exercise the duty of oversight imposed by section 1344(c).

Id. at 315-16. 

However, “Hanson is contrary to a series of other cases[.]” Alliance To Save

Mattaponi v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2007). In Preserve

Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 87 F.3d 1242,

1245 (11th Cir. 1996), the plaintiff brought claims under Section 505(a)(2) against the Corps

and the EPA. The district court dismissed these claims on a motion to dismiss “ruling that

neither the EPA nor the Army Corps of Engineers was subject to suit in this case.” Id. The

court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Section 505(a)(2) claims against the Corps

because 

Section (a)(2) of the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water

Act does not clearly and ambiguously waive sovereign

immunity in regard to the Army Corps of Engineers. The

statute states that a citizen can sue ‘where there is alleged a

failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under

this chapter which is not discretionary ...’ 33 U.S.C. §

1365(a)(2). It does not refer to the Army Corps of Engineers. 

We must conclude that Congress did not intend to waive

sovereign immunity in regard to suits against the Army Corps

of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

 Id. at 1249.

In Cascade Conservation League v. M.A. Segale, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 692, 695 (W.D.

-12-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 12 of 16
Wash, 1996), the plaintiff brought Section 505(a)(2) claims against the Corps, the chief

administrator of the Corps, the EPA, and the EPA Administrator. The court dismissed the

plaintiff’s Section 505(a)(2) claims against the Corps because the “Administrator” isdefined

in Section 1251(d) as the Administrator of the EPA and thus “[u]nder the rules of

construction..., the Court may not extend the waiver beyond the statute’s express terms to

include the Corps. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the statute elsewhere refers

specifically to the ‘Secretary,’ meaning ‘the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief

of Engineers.’” Id. at 696 (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1344(d)). The court concluded that

“‘Administrator’ ... is not a catchall term.” Id.

And the court in Alliance To Save Mattaponi, 515 F. Supp. 2d at 6, found “Hanson

... unpersuasive,” explaining that 

[h]owever puzzled the court may have been by the statute, and

even if the court were correct that “Congress cannot have

intended to” waive sovereign immunity as to EPA but not as

to the Corps, Congress’s presumed intent is not the question

when a court interprets a sovereign immunity waiver. Where

possible, such an interpretation “begins and ends with the

express terms of the statute. The Court must rely on plain

meaning interpretation to the extent possible, and must resolve

any ambiguities against a finding of waiver.” Cascade Conservation League, 921 F. Supp. at 697; see also Ardestani v. INS,

502 U.S. 129, 137 (1991) (waivers “must be strictly construed in

favor of the United States”). Here, a bar to CWA suits against

the Corps “is precisely what the express terms of the statute

accomplish, so the Court must assume that it was what

Congress intended. ‘[C]ourts must presume that a legislature

says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it

-13-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 13 of 16
says there.’” Cascade Conservation League, 921 F. Supp. at 697

(quoting Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249

(1992)).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, these courts have not ignored the plain language

of Section 505(a)(2) or Section 1251(d). Section 505(a)(2) only waives sovereign immunity

as to the suits against the Administrator. Section 1251(d) expressly defines the term

“Administrator” to mean the Administrator of the EPA. Section 1251(d) contemplates that

the Administrator of the EPA may not administer all portions of the CWA, but it does not

suggest that the term “Administrator” refers to anyone otherthan the Administrator of the

EPA. Because Section 505(a)(2) does not waive immunity for suits against the Corps, the

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s CWA claim and this claim is

dismissed with prejudice. 

Defendants also move to dismiss plaintiff’s APA claims on the grounds that plaintiff

lacks standing and that such claims are barred by the statute of limitations. As indicated

at oral argument, the court has serious doubts as to plaintiff’s standing but assumes for

purposes of the instant motions to dismiss that plaintiff has standing to bring his APA

claims.26 As for whether plaintiff’s APA claims are barred by the statute of limitations, “[a]

motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense is proper under Rule 12(b)(6).” 

26Even if the court were to have found that plaintiff lacked Constitutional standing

or prudential standing, or both, the court would have been inclined to give plaintiff leave

to amend his standing allegations as to his APA claims. 

-14-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 14 of 16
Piazza v. Brackett, Case No. 1:11 CV 01536 AWI, 2013 WL 3166283, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June

20, 2013). “Such a motion may be granted only ‘if the assertions of the complaint, read with

the required liberality, would not permit a plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled.’” 

Id. (quoting Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980)).

“APA claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.” Hells Canyon

Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Srvc., 593 F.3d 923, 930 (9th Cir. 2010). Both of

plaintiff’s APA claims involve a challenge to the validity of the Su-Knik mitigation bank

instrument, which makes the relevant date for determining whether the statute of

limitations has run the date on which the Corps approved that instrument. Plaintiff alleges

that the Corps and the Borough “entered into a mitigation banking agreement” on

February 5, 2009.27 Plaintiff filed this action on February 10, 2015, which was six years and

five days later. Thus, plaintiff’s APA claims, as currently pled, are barred by the statute of

limitations, and these claims are dismissed. Plaintiff’s APA claims are, however, dismissed

without prejudice because plaintiff may be able to fix the statute of limitations problem. 

Conclusion

Defendants’ and intervenor-defendants’ motions to dismiss

28 aregranted. Plaintiff’s

amended complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff’s CWA claim is dismissed with prejudice, and

27Amended Complaint at 9, ¶ 61, Docket No. 49. 

28Docket Nos. 59 and 60. 

-15-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 15 of 16
plaintiff’s APA claims are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a second

amended complaint as to his APA claims only. Should plaintiff elect to file a second

amended complaint, that complaint shall be filed on or before August 27, 2015. 

Because plaintiff currently has no viable claim, his motion for a preliminary

injunction29

is denied. For the same reason, his motion for summary judgment30

is denied. 

Because plaintiff is being given leave to amend as to his APA claims, Pioneer Reserve’s

motion to intervene31is denied as moot. For the same reason, plaintiff’s motion to

supplement the administrative record

32

is summarily denied with leave to renew should

plaintiff elect to file a second amended complaint. 

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 27th day of July, 2015. 

/s/ H. Russel Holland 

United States District Judge

29Docket No. 5. 

30Docket No. 88. 

31Docket No. 75. 

32Docket No. 87. 

-16-

Case 3:15-cv-00021-HRH Document 93 Filed 07/27/15 Page 16 of 16