UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION

SUMMARY OF LITIGATION

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

FISCAL YEAR 2006
CONTENTS

FOREWORD I

CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT OF OUR NATION’S

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE LAWS 1

PROTECTING OUR NATION’S AIR, LAND, AND WATER 4

ENSURING CLEANUP OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE 9

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF

AMERICA’S NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE 11

PROMOTING NATIONAL SECURITY

AND MILITARY PREPAREDNESS 14

DEFENDING VITAL FEDERAL 

PROGRAMS AND INTERESTS 15

PROTECTING INDIAN RESOURCES

AND RESOLVING INDIAN ISSUES 22

SUPPORTING THE DIVISION’S LITIGATORS 24 
FOREWORD

It is my pleasure to present the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s

Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2006. The Environment and Natural Resources

Division brings both affirmative civil and criminal enforcement actions on behalf of our client

agencies and defends federal agencies generally when their actions or decisions are challenged in

court on the basis of our environmental public lands and resources laws. This year the Division

achieved significant victories for the American people in each of the many areas for which it has

responsibility. These responsibilities include protecting the Nation’s air, water, land, wildlife and

natural resources, upholding our trust responsibilities to American Indians, and furthering

important federal programs, including the government’s mission to ensure national security. 

The Division is dedicated to the vigorous and fair enforcement of our Nation’s

environmental laws, in both the civil and criminal arenas. Such enforcement is a critical

component of environmental protection and helps ensure that our citizens breathe clean air, drink

clean water, and will be able to enjoy the country’s public lands, wildlife and other natural

resources for generations to come. It also helps ensure that law-abiding businesses have a level

economic playing field on which to compete. 

The Division's vigorous civil enforcement of our environmental laws has generated

record-breaking results over the past few years, and this year was no exception. In Fiscal Year

2006 the Division secured more than $3.7 billion in corrective measures through court orders and

settlements to protect the nation's environment and safeguard the public's health and welfare. The

required actions obtained by ENRD include compliance measures, land and river cleanup, state of

the art pollution-abatement controls, training, and education that will significantly benefit the

health and welfare of the nation. For example, the Division secured over $227 million worth of

cleanup of superfund sites, and recovered more than $140 million in past EPA costs to be used to

finance future cleanups. In addition, ENRD attorneys achieved extraordinary environmental

results in five consent decrees with large petroleum refiners, resulting in over $2 billion in new

pollution controls. With these new settlements, the Division has now brought enforcement

actions against more than 80 refineries comprising approximately 77% of the nation's refining

capacity, thereby reducing air pollutants more than 315,000 tons per year.

Fiscal Year 2006 was one of the most successful years of the last decade for the Division’s

criminal enforcement of environmental laws, based on the amount of jail time and criminal

penalties imposed against corporate polluters and other environmental law breakers. This year

courts imposed $70.4 million in total criminal penalties, including fines, restitution, and

supplemental sentences, and 65 years of jail time, the second highest figure for jail time in the

past ten years.

Although the public is generally familiar with the Division’s role as enforcer of the

environmental laws, much of our attorneys’ time is actually spent defending a wide range of

federal programs and interests. The Division has defended almost every federal agency, handling

cases that challenge such diverse and critical matters as military training programs, government

i
ii

cleanup actions, resource management programs, and environmental regulations. The Division’s

eminent domain and takings cases also facilitate important federal programs by enabling agencies

to acquire needed property or other rights in a fiscally responsible manner while respecting the

property interests of citizens.

The Division currently has a docket of approximately 6,800 active cases and matters. 

These cases involve more than 70 different environmental and natural resources statutes,

including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the

Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species

Act. The Division litigates in every judicial district in the Nation. 

The Division’s exemplary record in protecting the environment, American Indian rights,

and the Nation’s natural resources, wildlife, and public lands is due to the hard work of the

Division’s attorneys and staff in partnership with our client agencies, the United States Attorney’s

Offices, and state and local officials around the country. The Division’s many accomplishments

this year reflect the professionalism and dedication with which all these people work together to

carry out the Division’s mission. 

Sue Ellen Wooldridge

Assistant Attorney General

Environment and Natural Resources Division

January 2007
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT OF OUR

NATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL AND

WILDLIFE LAWS

Vessel Pollution Prosecutions. The

Vessel Pollution Initiative is an ongoing,

concentrated effort to prosecute those who

illegally discharge pollutants from ships

into the oceans, coastal waters and inland

waterways. The Division continues to have

great success prosecuting such activity, and

these prosecutions serve as a significant

deterrent to would-be polluters.

In United States v. MSC Ship

Management (Hong Kong) Limited, the

defendant, a Hong Kong-based container

ship company, pleaded guilty to

conspiracy, obstruction of justice,

destruction of evidence, false statements

and violating the Act to Prevent Pollution

from Ships (APPS). MSC Ship

Management paid $10.5 million in

penalties, the largest fine in which a single

vessel has been charged with deliberate

pollution and the largest criminal fine paid

in an environmental case in Massachusetts

history. MSC Ship Management admitted

that crew members on the MSC Elena

circumvented required pollution prevention

equipment in order to discharge oil sludge

and oil-contaminated waste directly

overboard. After the discovery of the

bypass pipe during a U.S. Coast Guard

inspection in Boston Harbor, senior

company officials in Hong Kong directed

crew members to lie about it to the Coast

Guard. Senior ship engineers also ordered

that documents be destroyed and concealed. 

The Chief Engineer of the ship was

sentenced to serve two months in prison

and ordered to pay a $3,000 fine.

In United States v. Wallenius Ship

Management, Pte., Ltd., a Singapore shipping

company pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

violate APPS and multiple felony counts. 

Under the plea agreement, the company has

agreed to pay a $5 million fine with an

additional $1.5 million payment devoted to

community service. The company also will

serve a three-year term of probation and

implement an environmental compliance plan. 

Crew members on the M/V Atlantic Breeze, a

car carrier vessel managed by Wallenius Ship

Management, sent a fax to an international

seafarers’ union that they were being ordered

to engage in deliberate acts of pollution,

including the discharge of oil-contaminated

bilge waste and sludge as well as garbage and

plastics. In addition, a bypass system hidden

in various parts of the ship had dumped oily

wastes illegally for about three years.

In United States v. Pacific-Gulf

Marine, Inc., an American-based ship operator

pleaded guilty to violating APPS, by

deliberately discharging hundreds of

thousands of gallons of oil-contaminated bilge

waste from four of its ships through a bypass

pipe. PGM admitted to circumventing the oily

water separator on four of its giant “car

carrier” ships. This case was also significant

in the substantial credit given defendant for its

extensive cooperation, facilitating Division

efforts to hold other vessel pollution violators

accountable.

In United States v. Stickle, the

Eleventh Circuit upheld the conviction of a

vessel owner for conspiracy to violate U.S.

laws and for unlawfully operating a freight

vessel as an oil transportation vessel. In 1998

the defendant’s vessel had been transporting

wheat from the United States to Bangladesh. 

En route, diesel fuel leaked from a separate

storage compartment and contaminated the

1
wheat. When the Bangladeshi importer

refused the wheat shipment, the vessel

owner authorized disposal of the oilcontaminated wheat on the high seas. The

court rejected the argument that because

the vessel was once an oil transportation

vessel, it should still be considered as such,

even though it was not licensed and did not

meet current standards for carrying oil.

Prosecuting Hazardous Waste

Violations, Clean Water Act and Clean

Air Act Crimes, and Worker

Endangerment. The Division has

successfully prosecuted several companies

owned by McWane, Inc., a company that

the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety

Administration (OSHA) has cited for

violations hundreds of times since the mid1990s. To date, McWane has paid nearly

$20 million in criminal fines, and the

national prosecution effort against McWane

has been a centerpiece of the Justice

Department's worker endangerment

activities.

In United States v. Atlantic States

Cast Iron Pipe Company, a seven month

trial resulted in guilty verdicts against

Atlantic States (a division of McWane) and

four of the five manager defendants on

multiple felony counts. Evidence adduced

at trial established a corporate philosophy

and management practice that led to an

extraordinary history of environmental

violations, workplace injuries and fatalities,

and obstruction of justice. Atlantic States

and the four current and former managers

were found guilty of conspiracy to violate

the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Clean Air

Act (CAA); to make false statements and to

obstruct the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and OSHA; and to defeat

the lawful purpose of OSHA and EPA. 

These five defendants also were variously

2

found guilty of substantive CWA, CAA,

Comprehensive Environmental Reclamation,

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),

false statement, and obstruction charges.

In United States v. Pacific States Cast

Iron Pipe Company, a Utah division of

McWane was convicted of making false

statements, and sentenced to pay a $3 million

fine. The company’s vice president and

general manager was sentenced to serve 12

months and one day for violating the CAA. In

United States v. McWane, Inc., McWane was

sentenced to pay a $5 million fine and $2.7

million in community service, for conspiring

to conceal illegal wastewater discharges into

Avondale Creek, from its Birmingham,

Alabama facility, substantive CWA counts,

making false statements and obstruction of

justice.

In United States v. Puerto Rico

Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), the

defendant pleaded guilty to a 15-count

indictment charging CWA violations based

upon a 25-year history of inadequately

maintaining and operating the island’s

wastewater and water treatment systems.

PRASA is a public corporation of the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico created to

provide water and sanitary sewer service, and

operates the island’s entire sewage collection

and treatment system. PRASA admitted to

nine counts of discharging in violation of its

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit at the nine largest

publicly-owned treatment works on the island;

five counts of illegal discharges from the five

water treatment plants that supply drinking

water to the largest portion of the local

population; and one count of a direct

discharge from the PRASA system to the

Martin Pena Creek.
In United States v. Bezhad

Kahoolyzadeh, the defendant was

sentenced to serve 37 months incarceration

and pay $1.29 million in restitution for

cleanup costs, conspiracy, illegally

transporting hazardous waste and illegally

storing hazardous waste. The defendant

illegally stored drums of perchloroethylene

waste and then shipped them to

unpermitted facilities to evade state and

city inspectors.

In United States v. Ortiz, the

defendant was convicted of negligent and 

knowing violations of the CWA for

disposing of wastewater from the

manufacture of airplane de-icing fluid into

Grand Junction, Colorado’s storm drain

system, which flows into the Colorado

River. The Tenth Circuit held that the

CWA does not require proof of knowledge

that a discharge will enter waters of the

United States, in reversing the lower court. 

It also held that a sentencing enhancement

should have been imposed for multiple

discharges.

Protecting Homeowners and Enforcing

the Clean Water Act. In United States v.

Robert Lucas, a developer was sentenced to

serve nine years in prison for violating the

CWA by illegally filling in wetlands, and

for conspiracy and mail fraud for selling

homes to hundreds of families despite

warnings from public health officials that

the illegal septic systems were installed in

saturated soil and were likely to fail,

causing contamination of the underlying

property and the drinking water aquifer. 

Lucas’ co-defendants were each sentenced

to serve 87 months in prison, and his two

companies were ordered to pay a total of

$5.3 million in criminal fines. 

3

In United States v. Gordon Tollison,

the owner and chief executive of a corporation

that owned and operated eight wastewater

treatment plants servicing housing

developments containing approximately 900

homes was sentenced to serve one year and a

day of incarceration for four CWA violations. 

The defendant’s plants had been in perpetual

violation of their state NPDES permits,

discharging untreated or under-treated sewage

into state waterways for more than 25 years. 

Enforcing the Laws Protecting Wildlife. In

United States v. Jonathan Corey Sawyer, the

defendant was sentenced to serve 15 months

incarceration for illegally importing and

exporting more than 230 reptiles worth

approximately $30,000 during an eight-month

period.

In United States v. Panhandle Trading

Inc., two companies and their vice president

entered pleas of guilty to conspiracy to violate

the Lacey Act and conspiracy to commit

money laundering for their role in an illegal

catfish importation scheme. The defendants

intentionally mislabeled frozen farm-raised

catfish fillets imported into the U.S. from

Vietnam to evade import duties. The scheme

involved over a million pounds of catfish

labeled as grouper, channa, snakehead, or

bass.

In United States v. Beau Lee Lewis, the

defendant was sentenced to serve 23 months

in prison for violating the conspiracy and

smuggling statutes when he imported more

than 300 protected reptiles and amphibians

into the United States. 

United States v. Hoang Nguyen

involved the smuggling of red snapper caught

in violation of the Magnuson Stevens

Fisheries Act. The captain of the fishing
vessel was ordered to serve 30 months in

prison, while a crew member received a

sentence of 21 months for his role in

concealing and selling commercial

quantities of red snapper that had been

illegally imported into the United States. 

In United States v. Estremar S.A.,

an Argentine company was sentenced to

pay a $75,000 fine for violating the Lacey

Act, as well as forfeit all assets including

$158,145.53 in proceeds from the sale of

Patagonian toothfish, a.k.a. Chilean

seabass. The company knowingly imported

and attempted to sell over 30,000 pounds of

this toothfish which had been illegally

harvested and transported.

Combating Fraud in the Asbestos

Abatement Training Industry. In United

States v. ACS Environmental, Inc., the

president of one asbestos abatement

company was sentenced to serve 21

months incarceration and pay a $1.5

million fine and the president of another

asbestos company was sentenced to serve

five months in prison and pay a $1 million

fine for conspiring to defraud OSHA,

EPA, and the Small Business

Administration (SBA). The companies

purchased 250 false training certificates for

their employees and then directed their

employees to do work involving asbestos,

lead, and hazardous waste removal at

schools and federal facilities under SBA

contracts set aside for minority-owned

businesses.

Prosecuting Illegal Sales of Ozonedepleting Chemicals. In United States. v. 

Dov Shellef, two sellers of refrigeration

chemicals were sentenced on 87 counts of

conspiring to avoid excise taxes on ozonedepleting chemicals, money laundering,

wire fraud, and tax violations. Shellef was

ordered to serve 70 months and his codefendant 18 months incarceration. Both

were held jointly and severally liable for $1.9

million in restitution for taxes due on

domestic sales of the ozone-depleting

chemical referred to as CFC-113. The

defendants told manufacturers that they were

purchasing CFC-113 for export in order to

buy the product tax-free and then sold it taxfree in the domestic market without notifying

the manufacturers or paying the excise tax. 

PROTECTING OUR NATION’S AIR,

LAND, AND WATER

Reducing Air Pollution from Coal-Fired

Power Plants. During this past year, the

Division continued to successfully litigate

CAA claims against operators of coal fired

electric power generating plants. The

violations arose from companies engaging in

major life extension projects on their aging

facilities without installing required state of

the art pollution controls. The resulting tens

of millions of tons of excess air pollution has

adversely affected human health, degraded 

forests, damaged waterways, and

contaminated reservoirs. In June 2006, the

Division obtained a partial settlement in

which Alabama Power Company agreed to

install and operate state-of-the-art pollution

controls at two units, to purchase and retire

$4.9 million in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission

allowances allocated under the acid rain

program, and to pay a $100,000 civil penalty. 

And in July 2006, the court entered a consent

decree with Minnkota Power Cooperative

which will substantially reduce air pollution

from SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOX) each

year from the two coal-fired units at its

facility through the installation of pollution

control measures estimated to cost in excess

of $100 million. Minnkota and Square Butte

4
will also pay a civil penalty of $850,000

and spend at least $5 million on

environmentally beneficial wind turbine

projects in North Dakota. The State of

North Dakota was a co-plaintiff in this

action. The Division, along with coplaintiffs Connecticut, New Jersey, and

New York, also made progress in its case

against Cinergy Corp. when, in August, the

Seventh Circuit upheld the District Court's

ruling for the United States on the key

legal test for an emissions increase under

CAA regulations. This year the Supreme

Court accepted certiorari in Environmental

Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., a case that

addresses whether, under EPA regulations

governing the Clean Air Act's Prevention

of Significant Deterioration program,

changes to a plant that increase total annual

emissions, but do not increase hourly

emissions, constitute a “modification”

under the CAA. The United States filed

briefs in support of the total annual

emissions regulatory standard.

Settlements achieved to date with

operators of coal fired power plants will

ultimately remove more than a million tons

of pollutants from the air a year. 

Addressing Air Pollution from Oil

Refineries. The Division also continued to

make significant progress in its series cases

aimed at CAA violations within the

petroleum refining industry. During the

past year, consent decrees were entered in

an additional five enforcement actions

against Exxon Mobil Corp., 

ConocoPhillips Co., Valero Energy Corp.,

Sunoco Refinery, Inc., and Chalmette

Refining, LLC. The Exxon Mobil

settlement addresses all six domestic

petroleum refineries owned by Exxon

Mobil and ExxonMobil Oil Corporations. 

The decree requires installation of controls

that will reduce air pollutant emissions by

more than 51,000 tons per year, at a cost of

approximately $537 million. The company

will also pay a $7.7 million civil penalty, and

another $6.7 million for environmentally

beneficial projects near the refineries. The

United States was joined in this settlement by

the States of Illinois, Louisiana, and Montana.

The ConocoPhillips settlement covers nine

refineries in seven states representing more

than 10% of total domestic refining capacity.

Under the decree, ConocoPhillips will install

an estimated $525 million in pollution control

technology expected to reduce annual

emissions of NOx and SO2 by more than

47,100 tons per year, pay a civil penalty of

$4,525,000, and perform $10.1 million in

supplemental environmental projects. The

United States was joined in this settlement by

co-plaintiffs Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, and the Northwest Clean Air

Agency of Washington. In the Valero

settlement, the settling companies will

implement more than $700 million in

pollution control technologies that will result

in emission reductions of over 20,400 tons per

year, pay a civil penalty of $5.5 million, and

spend $5.5 million to implement facility and

community-based supplemental

environmental projects. Under its settlement,

Sunoco will install $285 million in pollution

control technologies at its refineries in

Philadelphia (PA), Marcus Hook (PA),

Toledo (OH), and Tulsa (OK), pay a $3

million civil penalty, and perform $3.9

million in supplemental projects. Finally, the

settlement with Chalmette requires the

installation of approximately $34 million in

air pollution controls at a refinery in

Chalmette, Louisiana, payment of $1 million

in civil penalties, and performance of $3

million in environmental projects. The States

5
of Illinois, Louisiana, and Montana joined

the United States as co-plaintiffs in this

action.

 With these additional settlements,

the Division has now addressed more than

80 refineries, comprising approximately

77% of the nation’s refining capacity, and

will reduce air pollutants by more than

315,000 tons per year. In related cases, the

Division also completed civil enforcement

actions under the CAA and CWA against

Motiva Enterprises LLC, another

petroleum refiner. The civil action was a

companion to a criminal case and

concerned a fatal 2001 explosion and fire

at a Motiva oil refinery in Delaware. 

Under the consent decree, Motiva will pay

a $12 million penalty that will be shared

with our co-plaintiff, the Delaware Natural

Resource and Environment Commission,

and spend at least $3.96 million on

environmental projects. The new owner of

the refinery, The Premcor Refining Group

Inc., now a subsidiary of Valero, also

agreed to implement enhanced safety

procedures estimated to cost about $7.5

million. 

Reducing Air Pollution at Other Diverse

Industrial Facilities. The Division also

improved the nation’s air quality through

enforcement actions against numerous

other facilities operating in diverse

industries, including methyl methacrylate

and acrylic sheeting facilities (U.S. v.

Lucite International Inc.), polystyrene

foam manufacturing facilities (U.S. v. Atlas

Roofing Corp.), rubber tractor treads

manufacturing facilities (U.S. v.

Caterpillar and Camoplast Rockland,

LTD), ethanol production (U.S. v. Cargill,

Inc., U.S. v. MGP Ingredients of Illinois,

Inc.), grocery store refrigeration units 

(U.S. v. Newly Wed Foods, Inc.), polyvinyl

chloride (PVC) manufacturing facilities (U.S.

v. Formosa Plastics Corp., U.S. v. OxyVinyls,

L.P.), hazardous waste treatment, storage and

disposal facilities (U.S. v. Clean Harbors

Environmental Services), and pulp and paper

mills (U.S. v. Weyerhaeuser Company,

Willamette Industries, Inc.). Those efforts,

addressing similarly diverse CAA violations,

resulted in commitments by defendants to

perform more than $535 million in facility

improvements, to undertake SEPs valued at

$6.8 million to benefit local communities, and

to pay more than $4 million in civil penalties. 

The States of California, Illinois, Delaware,

New Jersey, and Louisiana joined the United

States as co-plaintiff in one or more of the

actions listed above. Just one of these

settlements, which involved ethanol

production (Cargill), will result in a reduction

of an estimated 25,000 tons per year of

harmful air emissions at 29 of defendant’s

facilities in thirteen states. The states of

Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North

Dakota, and Ohio, and counties in Tennessee,

Ohio and Iowa, were Plaintiff-Interveners and

signatories to the consent decree.

Controlling Contaminated Storm Water

Run-off. The Division also directed

significant effort toward assuring that

companies comply with the CWA’s

provisions governing the discharge of storm

water, a significant source of environmental

harm because of the pollutants it may contain. 

In January 2006, the District Court for the

District of Hawaii entered a consent decree

with the Hawaii Department of Transportation

(HDOT) resolving CWA violations resulting

from discharges along HDOT’s roadways,

construction projects, and at three airports. 

The consent decree requires HDOT to

undertake comprehensive corrective

6
measures, at an estimated cost of $60

million over the next five years, to achieve

compliance with the CWA. HDOT will

also pay a $1 million civil penalty and

perform $1 million in environmental

projects in the affected communities. In

June 2006, the same district court entered a

consent decree with an Hawaiian property

developer in U.S. v. James H. Pflueger,

resolving defendants’ illegal discharges of

storm water, sediment discharges, and

placement of unpermitted fill in stream

courses from construction activities on the

Island of Kaui. The decree requires

defendants to spend an estimated $6

million on corrective measures, pay a $2

million penalty, and perform a $200,000

environmental project. The State of

Hawaii joined the United States as coplaintiff in the actions against HDOT and

Pflueger.

Also in June, the District Court for

the District of Idaho in U.S. v. Idaho

Department of Transportation (ITD)

entered two consent decrees resolving

stormwater violations by ITD and a

contractor in connection with a road

building project. Under the decrees’ terms,

defendants will pay civil penalties totaling

$895,000 and undertake various actions to

better train their employees. IDT must also

improve its efforts to inspect for and

comply with storm water regulations. And

in August 2006, the District Court for the

Northern District of Texas entered a

consent decree in U.S. v. City of Dallas,

settling allegations that the City violated

the CWA by failing to adequately staff and

implement its storm water management

program. The decree requires the City to

undertake comprehensive injunctive relief,

pay a civil penalty of $800,000 and spend

$1.2 million on environmental projects. 

Texas was a co-plaintiff in this action.

Ensuring the Integrity of Municipal

Wastewater Treatment Systems. The

Division continued to protect the Nation’s

waterways by ensuring the integrity and

proper operation of municipal wastewater

treatment systems. In August 2006 the

Division lodged a second partial consent

decree with the City of San Diego requiring 

further injunctive measures to address

unlawful discharges from the City’s sewer

system at a cost of an additional $87 million. 

This decree follows a 2005 partial consent

decree that required the City to undertake

injunctive relief valued in excess of $187

million. In December 2005 a consent decree

was entered in U.S. v. Washington Suburban

Sanitary Commission (WSSC), resolving

CWA claims against the sewage authority that

serves Montgomery and Prince George’s

Counties in Maryland. Pursuant to the

decree, WSSC will spend an estimated $200

million on a comprehensive set of

improvements to control the overflow of

sanitary sewage, pay a $1.1 million penalty,

and perform $4.4 million in environmental

projects. Maryland joined the United States

as co-plaintiff in this case. In August 2006, a

consent decree was entered in U.S. v.

Metropolitan District Commission, Hartford

(MDC)) under which MDC, the operator of

the largest sewage collection system in the

State of Connecticut, will upgrade the sewer

collection system at a cost of more than $100

million and pay a civil penalty of $850,000

which will be split between the United States

and the State of Connecticut. The injunctive

relief is intended to eliminate sanitary sewer

overflows in the collection system and

improve water quality in streams in the

Hartford area.

7
 And in landmark criminal and civil

enforcement actions (U.S. v. Puerto Rico

Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA)),

the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer

Authority (PRASA) agreed to pay $10

million in criminal and civil fines and to

perform more than $1.7 billion in

injunctive relief to resolve repeated

environmental violations at wastewater

treatment plants and drinking water

treatment plants throughout Puerto Rico. 

To comply with the settlement, PRASA

will complete a total of 145 capital

improvement projects, including short-term

and mid-term projects over the course of

two years from the entry of the settlement.

The consent decree with PRASA was

lodged with the Puerto Rico District Court

in June 2006. 

The Division also helped ensure the

integrity of municipal wastewater

treatment systems by concluding

enforcement actions against a number of

smaller municipalities: City of New Iberia

(LA), City of Nashua (NH), City of

Okmulgee (OK), City of Chicopee (MA),

and City of Brockton (MA). In these

actions, the United States secured

commitments by defendants to spend an

estimated $310 million to improve their

municipal wastewater systems. In all of

these cases, the States joined the United

States as co-plaintiff and signed onto the

consent decree.

Ensuring Safe Drinking Water. The

Division also achieved a significant victory

under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the

Ninth Circuit. The appellate court 

affirmed a judgment in favor of the United

States in United States v. Alisal Water

Corp., an action involving 232 violations

of the Act against five water companies

which provided water to 28,000 people in

Monterey County, California. The Ninth

Circuit upheld the district court's order

appointing a receiver and requiring the sale of

several of the defendants’ systems.

Protecting the Nation’s Wetlands. In

United States v. Lone Moose Meadows, LLC,

working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for

the District of Montana, the Division

successfully sued the developer of a ski resort

in Big Sky, Montana, for the illegal filling of

wetlands. The Montana District Court

entered the consent decree in January 2006,

and ordered Lone Moose Meadows to restore

streams and wetlands, create new wetlands in

mitigation, and pay a $165,000 civil penalty. 

In another enforcement matter, United States

v. Don Prow d/b/a Rochester Topsoil, the

Minnesota District Court in April 2006

entered a consent decree requiring the

defendant to pay a $250,000 civil penalty and

comply with onsite/offsite restoration and

mitigation projects for the unauthorized

discharge of fill material into approximately

73 acres of wetlands in Rochester, Minnesota.

In May 2006 the Supreme Court ruled

in S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of

Environmental Protection, consistent with the

amicus brief filed by the Department of

Justice; the Court held that dams produce

"discharges" and are therefore subject to State

authority under section 401 of the Clean

Water Act. 

ENSURING CLEANUP OF OIL AND

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Continuing Progress to Cleanup

Contaminated River Systems. This year

the Division continued to secure significant

river cleanups. In October 2005, the Division 

reached an agreement with the General

8
Electric Company (GE), requiring it to

begin the dredging of sediment

contaminated with polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) at the Hudson River

PCB Superfund site in upstate New York. 

Under the settlement, GE will perform the

first of two phases of the dredging and pay

EPA up to $78 million for the Agency’s

past and future costs. The first phase will

remove about 10 percent of the total

volume of PCB-contaminated sediment

slated for dredging during the entire

cleanup, at an expected cost of between

$100 million and $150 million. The

second phase of the dredging is expected to

take five years. The GE cleanup project is

unprecedented in size and scope and

addresses the PCB discharges from two GE

manufacturing plants that for years

discharged hazardous PCBs directly into

the upper Hudson River. The goal of the

project is to restore one of the country’s

most important cultural and ecological

resources, while using approaches to

minimize impacts on local communities. 

In February 2006, the District Court for the

District of Montana entered a consent

decree in U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

(Milltown Reservoir Sediments) resolving

CERCLA claims against Atlantic Richfield

and NorthWestern Corporation in

connection with the Milltown Reservoir

Operable Unit, one of the numerous

Superfund sites within the Clark Fork

River Basin in Montana. Under the

consent decree, ARCO and NorthWestern

will remove the Milltown Dam and

millions of cubic yards of contaminated

sediment accumulated behind the dam, at

an estimated cost of $106 million. In April

2006, the Division lodged a consent decree

with NCR Corp. and Sunoco-U.S. Paper,

which requires those parties to perform the

first phase of remedial action for Operable

Unit 4 of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay

site in northeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin is

participating as a co-plaintiff in the Fox River

cleanup. The site is contaminated with PCBs

discharged into the Fox River from several

paper manufacturing and recycling facilities. 

The site was divided into five operable units

for purposes of remediation and will cost

more than $500 million to address overall. 

Phase 1 is expected to cost about $30 million

and features dredging, dewatering, and

landfill disposal of PCB-contaminated

sediments from a hot-spot of contamination

near the U.S. Paper manufacturing plant. 

This is the fifth partial consent decree

negotiated in connection with cleanup of the

site.

Conserving the Superfund through

Securing Cleanup of Hazardous Waste

Sites by Responsible Parties and

Recovering Superfund Monies Expended

for Cleanups. The Division secured the

commitment of responsible parties to clean up

additional hazardous waste sites, at costs

estimated in excess of $227 million, and

recovered more than $140 million for the

Superfund to help finance future cleanups. 

Examples of some of the major Superfund

cases resolved by the Division this year

include: U.S. v. Carrier Corp. (defendants to

perform the shallow zone remedy for the

Puente Valley Operable Unit of the San

Gabriel Valley Superfund site, valued at $27

million, and pay $800,000 in past response

costs); U.S. v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp.;

v. Lockheed Martin Corp.; v. White & White

Properties; v. Leach International Corp.; v.

Azusa Land Reclamation Co., Inc.; v.

Aerojet-General Corp.; and. v. Phaostron

Instrument and Electronic Co. (seven consent

decrees with16 defendants required to pay

$14.3 million in response costs and 88 percent

of future oversight costs at the Baldwin Park

9
Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley

Superfund site); U.S. v. Asarco, Inc.

(developer will purchase Asarco’s Tacoma

Smelter Superfund site and perform site

remedy at an estimated cost of $28 million

and Asarco will pay $1.5 million to

Superfund from the proceeds of sale); U.S.

v. NCH Corp. and U.S. v. FMC Corp.

(defendants will pay over $26 million in

past and future costs and perform remedial

work estimated at more than $13 million at

the Higgins Farm and Higgins Disposal

Superfund sites in New Jersey); U.S. v.

Dominick Manzo (judgment in favor of the

United States for $31 million in costs

incurred cleaning up the Burnt Fly Bog

Superfund site, also in New Jersey). 

Additionally, the Division entered into a

settlement agreement with Teck Cominco

America, Inc. (TCAI), and its Canadian

parent, Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. (TCM),

requiring TCAI to perform a remedial

investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS)

at the Upper Columbia River Superfund

site. The site, consisting of 150 miles of the

Columbia River and adjoining lands

between the Canadian border and the

Grand Coulee Dam, has been contaminated

by millions of tons of smelter slag and

heavy metals discharged into the Columbia

River from TCM's Canadian zinc and lead

smelter, approximately 10 miles north of

the border.

The Division also achieved notable

victories on appeal in U.S. v. W.R. Grace

& Co., in which the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals affirmed EPA’s decision to clean

up asbestos contamination in Libby,

Montana that resulted from W.R. Grace’s

mining operations as a “removal” action

under CERCLA instead of a “remedial”

action, and the district court’s order

requiring W.R. Grace to reimburse EPA

for $54.5 million. In U.S. v. Vertac Chemical

Corp., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

affirmed that Hercules and other companies

were liable for costs associated with EPA’s

cleanup of hazardous waste contamination at

a chemical plant site in Jacksonville,

Arkansas.

Enforcing Cleanup Obligations In

Bankruptcy Cases. The Division’s

bankruptcy practice has continued to grow. 

This year, the Division represented the United

States in many proceedings, including the

Dana Corp., Delta Air Lines, Asarco, Delphi

Automotive, Saltire, Encycle, and SafetyKleen bankruptcies, where debtors had

significant environmental responsibilities. 

The Division filed proofs of claim to require

that at least part of debtors’ estates be applied

to the costs of environmental remediation for

which the debtors are liable. In the Eagle

Picher bankruptcy, the Division secured the

agreement of the debtor to deposit $13.6

million into a custodial trust to be used to

fund environmental cleanup work at sites in

several states. The Division also lodged

proposed settlements in bankruptcy courts in

the Gulf States Steel, W.R. Grace, Armstrong

and Saltire Industrial bankruptcies. In these

proceedings, the Division received

distributions this year totaling more than $6

million in reimbursement of response costs. 

These settlements avoided abandonment of

contaminated properties by debtors and

enabled companies to avoid liquidation and

loss of jobs by facilitating reorganization or

sales of ongoing operations.

Recovering Natural Resource Damages.

The Division obtained significant results in its

efforts to recover for natural resource damage

claims securing settlements worth more than

$33 million. Some of the Division’s

recovery efforts include U.S. v. Schlumberger

10
Technology Corp, U.S. v. Elkem Metals

Co., U.S. v. Sunoco, Inc., U.S. v. American

Energy, Inc. and U.S. v. BP Amoco

Chemical Co. South Carolina and Georgia

joined the United States as co-plaintiffs in

Schlumberger; Ohio and West Virginia

were co-plaintiffs in Elkem Metals,

Kentucky was a co-plaintiff in Sunoco, and

Texas was a co-plaintiff in the case against 

BP Amoco. Restoration activities included

the removal of two dams, dredging PCB

contaminated sediments behind the dams,

and improving the stream corridor leading

to Lake Hartwell in South Carolina

(Schlumberger); the restoration of mussels,

fish, and snails damaged by releases of

hazardous substances to the Ohio River

(Elkem); the preservation of at least 100

acres of bottomland hardwood forest

habitat, the re-colonization of 19 acres of

former pasture with native vegetation, and

the creation of six acres of riparian wetland

in the vicinity of two Superfund sites in

Harris County, Texas (BP Amoco).

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE

STEWARDSHIP OF AMERICA’S

NATURAL RESOURCES AND

WILDLIFE

Implementing the President’s Healthy

Forest Initiative and Defending Federal

Forest Management Programs. The

Division continued its string of victories

defending against challenges to projects to

restore public forest lands, improve

wildlife habitat, and recover the value of

damaged timber on federal forest lands –

projects which implement President Bush’s

Healthy Forest Initiative. In Defenders of

Wildlife v. Kempthorne, the Division

prevailed in a challenge to the counterpart

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7

consultation regulations enacted as part of

the Healthy Forests Initiative. These

regulations empower the Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management to render their

own “not likely to adversely affect”

determinations concerning threatened and

endangered species for specified actions

without further process, thereby expediting

forest recovery under the Healthy Forests

Initiative.

The Division successfully defended

other forest management actions, including

timber management on Forest Service land in

grizzly bear habitat in Swan View Coalition v.

Barbouletos and the issuance of oil-and-gas

leases in New Mexico v. the Bureau of Land

Management.

Tending Fire-Damaged Forests and

Capturing Econom

and Dying Timber.

ic Value From Dead

 The Administration

made increased active management of the

Nation’s forests a priority in 2006, including

dealing with the ravages of wild fires. The

Division continued its successes in defending

against emergency motions for injunctive

relief in lawsuits challenging Forest Service

projects to salvage dead and dying trees,

reduce fire risks, and secure economic value

from burned-over areas in the Pacific

Northwest. In FSEEE v. United States Forest

Service, the court denied a motion for

emergency relief, finding that the plaintiffs

were not likely to succeed on claims

challenging the Forest Service’s interpretation

of the applicable Eastside Forest Plan and its

use of tree mortality guidelines. As a result of

the favorable decision, the Easy Fire

Recovery Timber Salvage Project on the

Malheur National Forest was able to proceed,

and the harvest was completed, allowing for

restoration efforts and providing revenue to

local communities. In Lands Council v.

Martin, the district court also denied a motion

11
for a preliminary injunction, finding that

plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on

claims under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest

Management Act against the School Fire

Recovery Project on the Umatilla National

Forest. As a result of the Division's

victory, that project has been able to

proceed with similar benefits. Similarly,

the Division successfully defended the

Forest Service’s ability to use “categorical

exclusions” under the National

Environmental Policy Act for timber sale

projects under 250 acres in size in

Allegheny Defense Project v. Bosworth.

Defending Multiple Federal Agencies

Operating the Federal Columbia River

Power System. The Federal Columbia

River Power System, a system of dams and

reservoirs on the Columbia and Lower

Snake Rivers, provides over 50% of the

power for the four states in this region. 

These rivers are also the habitat for 13

protected species of salmon. The Division

facilitated coordination of the client

agencies and fellow sovereigns to move

forward in complying with the 2005

remand order in National Wildlife

Federation v. National Marine Fisheries

Service and, in American Rivers v.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Fisheries, on May 23,

2006, obtained a critical decision rejecting

plaintiffs’ claims that the Upper Snake and

Columbia River operations had been

illegally segmented, thereby protecting the

Snake River Basin Adjudication agreement

from collateral attack. In related litigation,

the Division obtained dismissal on

jurisdictional grounds of two cases

collaterally challenging the United States’

compliance with and enforcement of a

Canadian salmon harvest treaty in Salmon

Spawning and Recovery Alliance v.

Department of State and Salmon Spawning

and Recovery Alliance v. U.S. Customs and

Border Patrol.

Restoring the San Joaquin River and

Securing Bureau of Reclamation Project

Water Supplies. The Bureau of

Reclamation’s California Central Valley

Project is one of the Nation’s major water

conservation developments. Seventy years

ago, Congress authorized construction of the

Friant Division of the Project. Friant Dam

diverts all but a fraction of the waters of

California’s second-longest river, the San

Joaquin – de-watering a lengthy reach of the

River for most of the year – for storage in

Miller Lake and eventual distribution,

primarily for agricultural use in the Central

Valley. After eighteen years of contentious

litigation over the Bureau’s renewal of longterm water supply contracts, the Division

negotiated an historic settlement in Natural

Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers. The

settlement delineates a monumental

intergovernmental project by the State of

California and the Bureau of Reclamation to

restore flows in 153 miles of the San Joaquin

River, harmonizing agricultural interests in

securing irrigation water supplies with

environmental interests in enhancing water

quality and reviving two salmon runs that

dried up when the Dam was built in the late

1940s.

Defending Fisheries Legislation. The

Division successfully defended the

constitutionality of a provision of the Atlantic

Coastal Act. That Act creates a cooperative

federalism framework under which the States

have primary authority to regulate fisheries

within 3 miles of shore, together with the

federal government. In Medeiros v. Vincent,

lobster fisherman challenged this legislation

12
under the Tenth Amendment and equal

protection clause. The First Circuit

rejected this challenge and the Supreme

Court has now denied certiorari.

Protection of the Florida Everglades.

The Division continues to contribute to the

restoration and protection of the

Everglades ecosystem – including the 1.3

million-acre Everglades National Park, the

largest, most important subtropical

wilderness in North America. In United

States v. South Florida Water Management

District, the U.S. District Court entered a

consent decree in 1992 requiring the State

of Florida to restore water quality in the

Everglades through regulation of

agricultural runoff and construction of vast

wetland treatment systems. After more

than a year of negotiations, the Division

this year negotiated an agreement with the

State of Florida on additional remedial

measures to complement those specified in

the consent decree. The consent decree’s

ambitious strategy to restore and preserve

the Everglades ecosystem – and the

federal-state collaboration that produced it

– have heralded a new era of

intergovernmental cooperation on the

Everglades historic $7.8 billion restoration

effort, fulfilling a top priority of the past

three federal administrations. The Division

this year continued its participation in the

proceedings of the South Florida

Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, the

intergovernmental body codified by

Congress in 1996 to coordinate the

restoration of the Everglades. The

Division has also participated in the

Miccosukee litigation, in which it has

defended the joint federal-State approach

to Everglades restoration. 

The Division also contributes to

protection of the endangered Everglades

ecosystem by acquiring lands within

Everglades National Park and Big Cypress

National Preserve through exercise of the

power of eminent domain, as authorized by

Congress and requested by the National Park

Service. Related acquisitions on behalf of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took place to

improve water deliveries to the Everglades. 

The largest case to date is United States v.

480 Acres of Land in Miami-Dade County,

Florida, and Gilbert R. Fornatora, et al. This

is the lead case in a consolidated trial group

of seven tracts totaling 1,000 acres in the

Everglades National Park expansion project. 

Defense of Offshore Oil and Gas Lease

Sale. Domestic energy production has

become increasingly visible as the Nation’s

energy needs grow and the role of foreign

energy increases. In Blanco v. Burton (E.D.

La.), the Governor of Louisiana sought to halt

an Interior Department offshore lease sale in

the western Gulf of Mexico for alleged

violations of NEPA, the Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act and the Coastal Zone

Management Act. The court denied the

Governor’s motion for an emergency

injunction to halt the lease sale because she

had failed to show irreparable harm if the sale

proceeded. The Interior Department and

Governor ultimately settled the case favorably

to federal interests. The Governor dropped all

her claims against the lease sale in return for

an Interior Department agreement to conduct

additional environment analysis on the next

lease sale and future lease activities. 

PROMOTING NATIONAL SECURITY

AND MILITARY PREPAREDNESS 

Defending Military Readiness Activities.

The Navy’s use of various sonar systems for

13
submarine detection has been the subject of

several cases. This year, the Division

aggressively defended a challenge to the

U.S. Navy's use of mid-frequency active

sonar during the multi-nation Rim of the

Pacific ("RIMPAC") anti-submarine

warfare exercise scheduled to take place

off the coast of Hawaii in conjunction with

the navies of 7 other countries. In Natural

Resources Defense Council v. Winter,

plaintiffs asserted Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA), NEPA, and

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

challenges. During litigation of a motion

for a temporary restraining order the

Secretary of Defense invoked the National

Defense Exemption under the MMPA, but

the court still enjoined the exercise under

NEPA. Despite that injunction, Division

attorneys were able to negotiate terms

limiting the injunction to a number of

mitigation measures that the Navy was

already undertaking pursuant to its

standard operating procedures or its marine

mammal incidental harassment

authorization, and the exercise was able to

proceed.

In Ilioulaokalani Coalition v.

Rumsfeld, the Division continued to defend

a challenge to a critical link in the Army’s

30-year, Army-wide modernization plan to

meet the national security needs of the

future. The plaintiffs in this action

challenged the Army’s compliance with

NEPA concerning its decision to transform

a light infantry division into a Stryker

Brigade Combat Team at an Army training

facility in Hawaii. After the Ninth Circuit

reversed the district court’s decision

granting summary judgment in favor of the

Army, the Division presented argument

and evidence in opposition to the plaintiffs’

request to enjoin military training and

modernization in Hawaii while the Army

works to complete additional environmental

documentation required by the court for

compliance with NEPA.

Defense of Immigration and National

Security Initiatives. In Sierra Club v.

Gonzales (S.D. Cal.), the Division secured an

important victory upholding the authority of

the Department of Homeland Security to

undertake important initiatives at a speed

appropriate to circumstances. The case was

originally a challenge under NEPA to

construction of a 14-mile fence on the

Mexican border to deter illegal immigration. 

Pursuant to recently enacted authority,

Secretary Chertoff waived compliance with

environmental laws as they applied to

construction of the fence. Plaintiffs

responded with three Constitutional

arguments attacking the waiver. In its

favorable ruling, the court emphasized that

“Congress' delegation of authority to the

Executive Branch relates to matters over

which the Executive branch has independent

and significant constitutional authority:

immigration and border control enforcement

and national security." The court further

found that the waiver authority as applied “in

the completion of a project uniquely within

the national security and immigration policy

provinces of the Executive Branch” was not

unconstitutional.

Property Acquisitions to Improve Military

Readiness and National Security. As

directed by federal agencies acting under

authority of Congress, the Division exercised

the federal government's power of eminent

domain to initiate litigation enabling a

number of land acquisitions. United States v.

1,098.221 Acres in Duval County, Florida,

and Gate Maritime Properties., et al., was

filed to acquire a port facility on Blount

14
Island near Jacksonville, Florida, used by

the Department of the Navy for weapons

shipping around the globe. Estimated just

compensation of $101,000,000 was made

immediately available to the landowner;

the landowner claimed compensation of

$199,290,000 based on a highest and best

use of conversion to high-end residential

development, with a marina, hotel,

commercial and cruise ship terminal. 

Following a two week jury trial conducted

last November, the jury returned a verdict

of $162,000,000 resulting in a cost saving

in excess of $30,000,000.

United States v. 17.69 Acres of

Land in San Diego County, California, and

National Enterprises, et al., concerned land

condemned by the Border Patrol, via the

Army Corps of Engineers, for construction

of a second fence and patrol zone along the

San Diego-Tijuana border. In a three week

trial, held last December, defendants

argued that just compensation was

$48,000,000 to $72,000,000 based on a

highest and best use of development of a

NASCAR stadium. The United States'

appraiser testified that the value of the

property was $265,400 as holding for

future industrial use. The verdict, after two

days of jury deliberation, was that just

compensation for the taking is $1,232,280,

resulting in a minimum cost saving in

excess of $46,000,000. 

The Division has acquired land in

a number of cases to facilitate the U.S.

Army's transformation of its 2nd Brigade,

25th Infantry Division (Light) to a Stryker

Brigade Combat Team. In the lead action

filed last year, United States v. 1,402 Acres

of Land Honolulu, Hawaii and the Estate

of James Campbell, et al., the parties

reached a $15,900,000 settlement, and

related NEPA claims were held not to be a

defense to a taking. The Division has also

acquired land on behalf of the Department of

the Navy United for encroachment protection,

training, and operations at Harvey Point

Defense Testing.

The Division has been working

closely with the U.S. Attorney (E.D. La.) and

his Office, along with the Army Corps of

Engineers in New Orleans, to assist and train

those offices in anticipation of what is

estimated will be some 400 Hurricane Katrina

related condemnations for the reconstruction

and enhancement of flood control systems.

DEFENDING VITAL FEDERAL

PROGRAMS AND INTERESTS

Defending the Department of Energy’s

Operations at Its Hanford Nuclear

Reservation. In United States v. State of

Washington, the United States succeeded in

its efforts to invalidate a Washington State

voter initiative that would have significantly

interfered with the activities of the

Department of Energy and the Navy in

Washington State and across the country. 

The new state law, originally known as "I297," and now the "Cleanup Priority Act,"

sought to: (1) bar shipments of nuclear waste

to the Department of Energy's Hanford

Facility – including shipments from other

sites in the Department of Energy’s

nationwide complex as well as nuclear

components from the Navy’s Pacific Fleet –

pending cleanup of waste currently at

Hanford; (2) change current storage,

treatment and disposal practices at Hanford

and its associated laboratories; and (3) expand

the State's jurisdiction over radioactive

materials. After obtaining a temporary

injunction against implementation of the new

law, the Division largely prevailed on its

15
interpretation of the law during a

certification proceeding in the Washington

State Supreme Court. The District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington in

June 2006 granted the government’s

motion for summary judgment. The court

found that the law was preempted by the

federal Atomic Energy Act, barred by

sovereign immunity, and violated the

Commerce Clause. As a result, the court

held that the law was invalid on its face,

and struck it down in its entirety. This case

is now on appeal.

Defending EPA’s Clean Water Act

Standards for Coal Mining. In Citizens

Coal Council v. EPA, petitioners under the

CWA challenged effluent limitations

guidelines and new source performance

standards for subcategories within the coal

mining category. The Division

successfully sought en banc reversal of a

prior adverse panel decision in which the

court held that EPA incorrectly applied the

statutory factors in setting effluent

limitations. The Sixth Circuit granted en

banc review, and in May 2006, the en banc

court issued a favorable decision upholding

the rule. The court reaffirmed the panel’s

decision that the Rahall Amendment –

which sought to encourage remining of

abandoned mines by providing limited

exceptions from the statute’s effluent

limitation requirements – did not bar EPA

from promulgating additional regulations

to provide for broader exceptions for

remining. The court also upheld EPA’s

use of best management practices (BMPs)

in lieu of numerical effluent limitations, its

treatment of remining discharges that are

commingled with other waste streams, and

its decision to set the effluent reduction

attainable at remining areas at zero. 

Upholding EPA Actions Implementing the

Montreal Protocol. In Natural Resources

Defense Council v. EPA, the Division

successfully defended EPA’s approval of the

2005 critical use exemption for the ozonedepleting substance methyl bromide. In

August 2006, in a revised decision the D.C.

Court of Appeals held that NRDC had

demonstrated standing, but upheld the

position of EPA on the merits. The court held

that post-treaty decisions of parties to the

Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting

Substances were not “law” that could bind

courts of the United States, as they were not

signed by the President or ratified by the

Senate.

Resolving Federal Liability to Ensure the

Cleanup of Hazardous Waste. Through the

use of alternative dispute resolution and with

the assistance of a court-approved mediator,

the Division was able to resolve a claim

under CERCLA by Kerr-McGee Corporation

(now Tronox LLC) seeking to force the

United States to pay the vast majority of the

cost of cleaning up groundwater

contamination near its manufacturing facility

in Henderson, Nevada. In January 2006, the

D.C. District Court in Kerr-McGee Chemical

LLC v. United States entered a consent decree

requiring the United States to pay the agreed

upon share of cleanup allocated to the United

States, which was approximately one-third of

the amount that Kerr-McGee originally

sought. Similarly, in Crane Co. v. United

States, a complex action under CERCLA

seeking $30 million in alleged past costs and

undetermined future costs related to the

cleanup of TCE and perchlorate at a former

military ordnance and pyrotechnics

manufacturing plant in Goodyear, Arizona,

the United States was able to negotiate a

favorable consent decree providing for a

payment by the United States of

16
approximately 15% of plaintiffs’ claimed

past costs and 21% of future costs. The

Arizona District Court entered the consent

decree in August 2006, fully resolving the

matter. Finally, in Rhode Island v. United

States, the State sued under CERCLA to

recover natural resource damages and

response costs at the Allen Harbor Landfill

and associated wetlands in North

Kingstown, Rhode Island. With the

assistance of court-sponsored mediation,

the United States reached a $1.2 million

settlement of all claims for past response

costs and damages to natural resources in

connection with the Allen Harbor Landfill. 

The Rhode Island District Court entered

the consent decree in August 2006.

Defending EPA’s Cleanup Actions. In

Benzman v. Whitman, residents of Lower

Manhattan and Brooklyn filed a classaction suit alleging constitutional tort,

mandamus, APA, and CERCLA claims

against actions taken by EPA to clean up

inside buildings following the collapse of

the World Trade Center. In February

2006, the District Court for the Southern

District of New York held that the Stafford

Act precluded judicial review of claims

that EPA failed to comply with various

provisions of the National Contingency

Plan because those provisions were

discretionary rather than mandatory. 

However, the court found that the APA

claim for violation of plaintiffs’

substantive due process rights could

proceed. The court allowed constitutional

tort claims filed against former

Administrator Whitman to proceed. 

Whitman appealed, and EPA sought and

obtained certification for interlocutory

appeal on the one claim against EPA that

the court did not dismiss. 

Defending EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory

and Community Right-to-Know Program.

In Ad Hoc Metals Coalition v. Whitman and

National Federation of Independent Business

v. Johnson, the D.C. District Court in January

2006, upheld an EPA rule lowering the

reporting threshold for lead under the Toxic

Release Inventory program, under which

industrial facilities must file reports on all

releases of listed toxic chemicals. The court

also held that the statute authorizes EPA not

only to raise the reporting thresholds

established in the Emergency Planning and

Community Right to Know Act, but also to

lower them, finding that such authority was

not an unconstitutional delegation of

legislative power. Finally, the court held that

EPA reasonably applied a scientific

methodology that uses persistence,

bioaccumulation and toxicity to assess the

hazard presented by lead.

Defending the Clean Water Act’s

Nationwide Permits. In National

Association of Home Builders v. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the D.C. District Court in

September 2006, held in the government’s

favor on a “a myriad of challenges” to the

new Nationwide Permits issued in 2002 to

replace a permit that had previously

authorized filling that affected up to 10 acres

of wetlands. The court determined that the

Corps acted reasonably in issuing nationwide

permits with more restrictive conditions than

those it had issued in the past, finding that the

Corps adequately explained its reasons for

making each of the challenged decisions.

Defending EPA's Interpretation of the

Clean Water Act. In Dominion Energy

Brayton Point, LLC v. Johnson, the Division

successfully defended the EPA's regulatory

interpretation of the Clean Water Act term

"opportunity for public hearing" in a

17
challenge by a power company. The First

Circuit rejected the argument that its prior

decision in Seacoast Anti-Pollution League

v. Costle, which interpreted the disputed

language, created a "non-discretionary

duty" under the CWA. The First Circuit

held that in light of the evolution of

Supreme Court case law on statutory

interpretation, deference was owed to

EPA's reasonable interpretation of the

ambiguous term. 

Defending the Army Corps of

Engineers’ Emergency Authority. In

Louisiana Environmental Action Network

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the

District Court for the Eastern District of

Louisiana, in April 2006, refused to enjoin

construction of a New Orleans landfill for

the disposal of hurricane debris. The court

found that plaintiffs failed to establish a

likelihood of success on the merits or

irreparable harm, and that the Corps’

emergency authorization contained the

requisite finding of an emergency

necessary to by-pass notice and comment

procedures and to defer NEPA analysis. 

The court noted: “One need only look

around to know the tragic truth of these

statements and findings.” 

Defending the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers’ Clean Water Act Permits.

Division attorneys defeated three

challenges to the Mills Corporation’s

permit in connection with the proposed

Xanadu shopping, entertainment, sports,

lodging and office complex in the

Meadowlands, in East Rutherford, New

Jersey. In Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc.

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and

Borough of Carlstadt v. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, the New Jersey District

Court dismissed in October 2005 and

February 2006, respectively, challenges to the

permit brought by a disappointed competing

bidder and a neighboring municipality on

grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to

sue. Then, in Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, the New Jersey District Court

reviewed the voluminous record compiled by

the Corps, and on September 28, 2006, held

that the Corps had properly and adequately

analyzed the project under NEPA. The court

also held that, consistent with Clean Water

Act requirements, the Corps reasonably

adopted a definition of the project proffered

by the state development agency and gave

sufficient consideration to alternative

configurations that could have avoided the fill

before concluding that there was no

practicable alternative that would meet the

project purpose. 

Defending Federal Water Management

Programs. The continued drought in regions

of the country and the pressure on water

resources generally results in constant

litigation, as more fish species are listed under

the Endangered Species Act due, in part, to

these events. This year the Division prevailed

against several challenges to federal

management of water resources. In Consejo

de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v.

United States, a major concrete lining project

for the All-American Canal, which delivers

Colorado River water to the Imperial

Irrigation District (IID) along the border with

Mexico, and in Alabama v. United States

Army Corps of Engineers, where the adverse

impacts on protected species of the Corps'

operation of dams and reservoirs in the

Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint Basin

were worsened by drought, the Division

successfully defended against emergency

motions for injunctive relief. The court found

that the Corps could not be held liable for

18
drought and allowed the Corps to continue

status quo operations.

Defending Fish and Wildlife Service's

Endangered Species Act listing

program. Several cases resolved by the

Division this year concerned interpretation

of ESA provisions that allow for the listing

as threatened or endangered species of

"distinct population segments" of species,

and provisions that require the Fish and

Wildlife Service to address a species status

in "a significant portion of the range."

Division attorneys asserted carefully

articulated legal theories explaining the

agency's interpretations and achieved

notable success in Center for Biological

Diversity v. Fish and Wildlife Service,

which affirmed the coastal cutthroat trout

"no-list" decision, and Center for

Biological Diversity v. Norton, which

affirmed the Rio Grande cutthroat trout

"no-list" decision.

Ensuring Limited Federal Jurisdiction is

Enforced. The Administrative Procedure

Act and other special review provisions

circumscribe federal jurisdiction, and in

several cases the Division prevailed on

these or similar defenses. In

Environmental Protection Information

Center v. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

court held that there was no judicial review

of prosecutorial discretion where plaintiffs

claimed the Fish and Wildlife Service

failed to revoke an ESA Section 10 permit

when the permittee was allegedly in

violation of the permit’s terms of the

permit. In American Bird Conservancy v.

Federal Communications Commission the

court dismissed an ESA challenge to

permits for communications towers where

exclusive jurisdiction was in the court of

appeals. Similarly, in Geertson Seed

Farms v. Johanns, the court dismissed ESA

claims against EPA regarding tolerance levels

of Roundup where plaintiffs failed to exhaust

administrative remedies and exclusive

jurisdiction rested with the court of appeals. 

Finally, in Salmon Trollers Marketing Ass'n v

Gutierrez, the court denied a preliminary

injunction as unavailable under the limited

judicial review provisions of the Magnuson

Stevens Fisheries Conservation Management

Act.

Defending Federal Criminal Jurisdiction. 

The Division routinely assists other

Department components in securing federal

enclave or legislative jurisdiction. This year,

the Division assisted another Department

component in demonstrating the existence of

federal legislative jurisdiction at a national

forest site in Michigan. As a result, the Court

upheld a death penalty imposed as a result of

a murder committed at that site.

Defending the Establishment of a Nuclear

Waste Depository. The Division advanced

the important policy goal of developing a

central nuclear waste repository in Western

Shoshone National Council v. United States.

The Western Shoshone Tribes brought this

case pursuant to the Treaty of Ruby Valley

and attempted to enjoin the federal

government from taking any further steps to

license or develop Yucca Mountain as a

nuclear waste repository and seeking a

declaratory judgment preventing any use of

the land not specified in the treaty. The Court

granted the government’s motion to dismiss

on sovereign immunity grounds.

Improved Definition of Land Use Planning

Responsibilities and other Principles. In

the consolidated cases State of New Mexico v.

BLM and New Mexico Wilderness Alliance v.

Rundell (D. N.M.), plaintiffs challenged the

19
Bureau of Land Management’s amendment

of the Resource Management Plan for

Southern New Mexico to govern issuance

of oil and gas leases. Plaintiffs alleged that

the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service

violated several environmental statutes in

adopting the Plan, which they claimed did

not adequately protect the Otero Mesa

grasslands. The court held in the

government’s favor on all major claims. 

Most significantly, it found that BLM

complied with the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act by considering a

proposed alternative of New Mexico's

Governor. BLM was not required to adopt

or provide for public comment on the

Governor's precise alternative. The court

further held that BLM’s "not likely to

adversely affect" determination for the

endangered Aplomado Falcon and the Fish

and Wildlife Service’s concurrence

complied with the ESA.

Defense of Corps Permit Facilitating

Mass Transit Construction. In many

urban areas, mass transit projects and

efforts to relieve the burden of auto traffic

are controversial and end up in litigation. 

In Advocates For Transportation

Alternatives Inc, v. Army Corps of

Engineers (D. Mass.), plaintiffs claimed

that the Army Corps of Engineers violated

NEPA and the Clean Water Act when it

issued a CWA permit to the Massachusetts

Bay Transportation Authority to fill up to

7.60 acres of wetlands for construction of a

17.7-mile commuter rail line extension to

serve the southeast suburbs of Boston. 

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that

the Corps failed to adequately review

important environmental impacts. The

court found that the Corps’ environmental

analysis properly considered beneficial and

adverse effects, mitigation measures,

public health and safety risks from train

accidents and diesel emissions, and effects on

recreation areas, wetlands, historic resources,

and State-designated Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern, and thus allowed this

important project to proceed.

Protecting Taxpayers Against

Unwarranted Claims. The Division has a

responsibility to protect the public fisc against

unwarranted claims and to provide just

compensation when the government takes

private property for public purposes. This

year, the Division prevailed against a number

of claimants bringing suits as a result of a

wide variety of federal program decisions. 

For example, in Cane Tennessee, Inc. v.

United States (Court of Federal Claims), the

plaintiff alleged that the Secretary of the

Interior’s decision to designate an area

encompassing his property as unsuitable for

surface coal mining operations under the

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

resulted in an unconstitutional taking. In

October 2005, following trial, the court held

that the plaintiff failed to establish that the

government’s regulatory action caused a loss

sufficient to constitute a taking.

Major federal construction projects

frequently result in takings claims. In Ingram

v. United States (Court of Federal Claims), a

group of property owners alleged that the

construction and operation of the Red River

Navigation Project in Louisiana resulted in

the taking of flowage easements across their

property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 

In September 2006, following trial, the court

ruled in favor of the United States in 15 cases,

holding that the Project did not cause surface

flooding on any of the plaintiffs’ properties,

nor did it cause groundwater levels to rise on

the properties. 

20
The Division also had an

outstanding year defending important

federal regulatory programs against takings

claims. In Brace v. United States (Court of

Federal Claims), the plaintiff alleged that a

portion of his farm in Pennsylvania had

been taken as result of a Clean Water Act

enforcement action that required him to

restore previously drained wetlands. In

August 2006, following trial, the court

dismissed all claims, finding that the

government’s actions did not take the

farmer’s property in violation of the Fifth

Amendment. In DuMarce v. Scarlett

(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit),

the heirs of several Indian decedents,

alleged a taking of property in violation of

the Fifth Amendment as a result of the

government's application of the

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Act of 1984. 

The Act provides that small fractional

interests in land escheat to the tribe instead

of passing to the heirs. In May 2006, the

Federal Circuit reversed the trial court’s

holding and found that the government,

acting as trustee, timely informed the

plaintiffs of all facts pertaining to their

potential causes of action and, as a result,

their claims were time-barred under the

statute of limitations.

General Motors v. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers involved a state law claim

against the Corps for recovery of response

costs in connection with the cleanup of the

Middleground Landfill site on

Middleground Island, in the Saginaw

River. In November 2005, the District

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

dismissed the complaint against the Corps

with prejudice, finding that neither the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

nor CERCLA waived the federal

government’s sovereign immunity from

state law claims for recovery of response

costs at this privately owned, third party site. 

Similarly, in Rhode Island Resource Recovery

Corp. v. EPA, a suit challenging remedial

action at the Central Landfill Superfund site

in Johnston, Rhode Island, the court held that

there is no waiver of sovereign immunity for

suing EPA.

There has also been significant

litigation, in multiple federal district courts

and courts of appeals, relating to the

interpretation and application of the Supreme

Court's decision in Cooper v. Aviall (holding

that a § 113 contribution action may be

brought only if there is a pending or

completed §§106 or 107 civil action or a

settlement). A particular focus has been on

the issue of whether a liable party who has

not satisfied the requirements of section

113(f) of CERCLA for bringing a

contribution action may instead bring an

action under section 107 of CERCLA. The

Division has taken the position that such suits

are not permitted, and prevailed on this issue

in the Third Circuit in E.I. Dupont De

Nemours v. United States. The Eighth Circuit

ruled adversely in Atlantic Research Corp. v.

United States; the United States has sought

certiorari from that decision. 

Enforcing Environmental Laws Through

International Capacity Building. The

Division has developed considerable expertise

in providing civil and criminal environmental

enforcement and related training to

practitioners, country officials, and judges,

and it continues to get requests from both

agencies and foreign countries to provide

such training. Among other activities,

Division attorneys assisted senior officials

from ASEAN nations to create a Southeast

Asia wildlife law enforcement network at a

late 2005 Workshop entitled “Stopping the

21
Illegal Wildlife Trade in Southeast Asia”

and have conducted several follow-up

training workshops throughout the area in

2006. Division attorneys also lectured at

the Lobster Workshop sponsored by the

Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute

(GCFI) in Colombia in late 2005 to discuss

Lacey Act prosecutions based on foreign

law violations. As part of their work with

the Enforcement Working Group of the

Commission on Environmental

Cooperation (CEC), Division attorneys

developed and presented, with

representatives from Canada and Mexico, a

judicial training program for Mexican

judges in Mexico City and an innovative

enforcement techniques conference in

Washington, D.C.. The Division also

helped organize numerous meetings in

D.C. to share information and expertise

with visiting foreign enforcement and other

personnel from countries such as China,

Belgium, and the U.K. Finally, as a

member of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force,

the Division organized and led extremely

well-received interagency enforcement

training workshops in three Task Force

member jurisdictions. Together with a

number of other federal agencies the

Division is currently working with the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on a similar

workshop.

PROTECTING INDIAN RESOURCES

AND RESOLVING INDIAN ISSUES 

Defending Tribal and Federal Interests

in Water Adjudications. Water

adjudications are complex cases, often

involving the rights of thousands of parties.

During the past year, the Division settled

or achieved entry of a final decree based on

a settlement in four major water rights

adjudications in which the United States

22

asserted water rights claims for the benefit of

tribes. First, in Arizona v. California, the

Supreme Court issued a consolidated final

decree that ended 54 years of litigation in the

oldest original action brought before the

Court. The decree approved the settlements

between the United States, the Quechan

Indian Tribe, and the State of Arizona, and

between the Quechan Tribe, the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California, and the

Coachella Valley Water District. The decree

also consolidated five separate decrees

previously issued by the Court. Second, the

United States sought the adjudication court’s

final approval of the Gila River Indian

Community Water Rights Settlement

Agreement in In re Gila River System and

Source. The settlement, if approved, will be

the largest water rights agreement in Arizona

history, and will provide the Gila River Indian

Community with 653,000 acre-feet of water

annually. Third, in United States v.

Washington Department of Ecology (Lummi),

the Division worked with the Interior

Department, the State of Washington, private

water users, and the Lummi Indian Nation to

craft a historic settlement of an important

water rights lawsuit involving groundwater

underlying the Lummi Reservation. Finally,

the Division negotiated a consent decree

resolving the United States’ claims on behalf

of Duck Valley Reservation in In re SRBA.

Protecting Tribal Hunting, Fishing, and

Gathering Rights. The Division litigates to

defend treaty-protected tribal hunting, fishing,

and gathering rights. In United States v.

Michigan, the United States, several tribes,

the State of Michigan, and interested

Michigan hunting and conservation groups

negotiated the terms of an agreement in

principle that, when formalized in a consent

decree, will recognize the existence and

extent of the inland hunting and fishing rights
of five tribes in Michigan. In United States

v. Washington, the Division worked with

17 tribes, the State of Washington, and

commercial entities to reach a settlement of

the tribes’ treaty right to take shellfish. 

Protecting Tribal Lands. The Division

also defends and brings suits relating to

over 50 million acres of land that the

United States holds in trust for tribes. In

Fidelity Exploration & Production Co. v.

United States, the Division successfully

defended a challenge to whether the United

States had a colorable claim that a portion

of the Tongue River bed lies within the

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation.

Protecting Tribal Governmental

Authority. Following a decision by the

Supreme Court that Indian tribes lacked

jurisdiction to bring criminal prosecutions

against members of other Tribes, Congress

enacted legislation reinstating that

authority. The Division has successfully

opposed two constitutional challenges to

that legislation, and secured rulings from

the Ninth Circuit that the legislation does

not violate due process or equal protection. 

The two cases are Means v. Navajo Nation

and Morris v. Tanner; certiorari has now

been denied in both cases. 

Upholding Agencies’ Authority to

Implement Indian Policies. In addition to

actively defending the Secretary of the

Interior’s land trust acquisition authority

against constitutional and administrative

law challenges, the Division successfully

resolved a challenge to the Secretary’s

ability to take land into trust for use by the

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi

Indians in CETAC v. Norton.

Defending Implementation of Indian

Gaming Laws. The explosion in Indian

gaming has brought an increasing number of

challenges to its regulatory structure. The

Division was successful in defending the

constitutionality of provisions of the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act in Santee Sioux Tribe

of Nebraska v. Kempthorne, in which the court

rejected constitutional and statutory

challenges to a regulation that provides

procedures in lieu of a Tribal-State compact

allowing gaming. The court also upheld the

Interior Secretary’s determination that casino

games were not permitted under Nebraska

law and could not be the subject of

procedures in lieu of a compact. In

Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, the Division

preserved the exclusive jurisdiction of the

United States to enforce Indian gaming laws

on Indian lands in Kansas. In Sebelius v.

Norton, the court affirmed that the Secretary

acted properly in taking these same Indian

lands into trust for the Wyandotte Nation as a

mandatory acquisition directed by Congress

and not subject to NEPA or the National

Historic Preservation Act. 

SUPPORTING THE DIVISION’S

LITIGATORS

New ENRD Intranet. In April, the

Executive Office rolled out its new and

improved ENRDNET, an intranet site

featuring daily announcements as well as onestop access to more than 35 Division-wide

services and programs with related guidance

and online forms. The intranet upgrade has

been well received by Division staff, and

usage statistics (over 1 million page-views in

the first 6 months) show that it is improving

communication and knowledge management

for the staff. 

23
Computer System Upgrade. ENRD

continued its commitment to providing

top-quality technology for Division

litigators with an upgrade to the JCON

desktop office automation system in 2006. 

Over the first three months of the year, the

desktop was upgraded with the latest

software available in both the Microsoft

and Corel office automation suites, the

latest version of the Internet software, and

new versions of the most-used litigation

tools. This new desktop image was rolled

out to all employees with minimal

disruption. The Division also upgraded its

video-teleconferencing hardware with

portable systems that allow videoconferencing where a network system drop

is available.

Automated Litigation Support. The

Office of Litigation Support provided

outstanding support to some of ENRD’s

most complex cases, making excellent use

of technology, contract staff, and in-house

expertise. We provided on-site trial

support for major civil and criminal cases

across the country, in locations as diverse

as San Diego, Portland, Salt Lake City,

Miami, Ohio, and Virginia. Case support

ranged from assisting with document

management to establishing technological

infrastructure that can link the courtroom

and hotel prep rooms with DOJ offices in

DC or elsewhere. The litigation support

team met complex demands for physical

and electronic security of documents.

The Office of Litigation Support

continued its exemplary “back office”

support of trial teams this year with the

creation of a mock electronic courtroom

which trial teams can use to practice

litigating in the new, entirely electronic,

courtroom environment. The Division also

saw growth in the use of technology through

the expanded use of its secure extranet

connection over which trial teams share

documents with experts, outside agency

counsel and other interested parties. ENRD’s

document scanning lab and other innovative

approaches to automated litigation support

have served as models of best practices that

have been emulated by other DOJ

components and outside agencies.

Security and Emergency Planning. In

2006, ENRD pursued an aggressive agenda

for security and emergency planning. The

Division completed writing a comprehensive

Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP Plan)

several months ahead of the required

Departmental schedule and began required

employee training on the Plan (which will

continue into 2007). As part of the Plan, the

Division’s information technology staff

developed a sophisticated mirror network

system that will serve as an instantly available

backup, current to within 24 hours, should the

primary computer network system become

unavailable due to an area-wide emergency

event. About two-thirds of ENRD’s

employees have the capability to access the

Division’s computer network from a remote

site if the office buildings are not fit for

occupancy. This network redundancy ensures

a more flexible and efficient work capability

for ENRD employees. The Assistant

Attorney General also approved extension of

a telework policy for attorneys which can be

expanded, if necessary, in support of the

COOP and other emergency planning

initiatives.

The Division is working with building

security committees and other Federal

agencies to ensure that physical security in

our buildings continues to improve to the

highest levels needed for the health and safety

24
of all our employees. We have begun

implementing the changes required for the

issuance of government-wide identification

cards mandated under Homeland Security

Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12).

President’s Management Agenda.

ENRD has been an active participant in the

DOJ initiatives to improve the management

of the Federal Government under the

President’s Management Agenda. The

Division contributes to the Departmental

rating for three initiatives: Human Capital,

Budget and Performance Integration, and

e-Government. We were awarded a

“green” score for each quarter of 2006 in

which we received a “report card” rating. 

Beyond the regular quarterly contributions,

ENRD also has worked with the DOJ

Human Resources office on the Skills Gap

survey analysis, Human Capital Survey,

and the updating of the Department’s

Human Capital Strategic Plan.

Support Programs. ENRD’s Human

Resources staff implemented an Honors

Paralegal Program, as part of the Federal

Career Intern Program, that will provide a

strong recruiting avenue for entry-level

paralegal support. Several litigating

sections and individual trial teams elected

to participate in a pilot program for mail

scanning, which allowed them to receive

all of their mail in electronic format after it

had already been opened and catalogued to

the proper case. This pilot program was

successful and will become the basis for a

fully electronic mail and file management

program to be implemented in 2007.

In compliance with new

requirements from the Office of

Management and Budget, the

Comptroller’s Office assisted the Division

with implementing stronger internal controls

over our financial programs. The Office also

provided updated training to all attorneys on

the use and management of their purchase

cards for litigation expenses.

ENRD’s Denver Field Office staff was moved

into upgraded space in the Rogers Federal

Building this spring. The space includes

ergonomic office design, and better security

for employees.

25