Accomplishments Report 

Fiscal Year 2017 
ENRD 

SUMMARY OF DIVISION ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 

1
Browns Canyon National Monument, Colorado, Bureau of Land Management

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................3

Overview of the Environment and Natural Resources Division..........................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.................................................................................

...........................

.......................................................................................................

8

Recognizing Our Staff 12

Vigorously Enforcing Our Environmental Laws 16

Supporting Infrastructure Development and Energy Security and Independence 32

Strengthening National Security 35

Defending Federal Programs and Supporting the Administration’s Regulatory Reform Agenda.....38

Focusing on Our Internal Operations 45

Snapshots from Fiscal Year 2017 Award Ceremonies.

..

48

.............................................................................................

......................................................................

2
Foreword

Sonoran Desert National Monument, Arizona, Bureau of Land Management

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreword 

It has been a true honor and privilege to serve as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the

Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) since January 2017, under the leadership

of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and alongside the extraordinary public servants of the 

Division. ENRD is a powerful force for good in our country — both through our enforcement of

the environmental laws to protect clean land, clean air, clean water, and wildlife, and our

defense of the rule of law and good governance by our client agencies. Every day I see firsthand

the skill, integrity, and commitment of the Division’s attorneys and staff. The Accomplishments

Report that follows provides but a glimpse of the important work we undertook together in

fiscal year 2017 (FY2017).

At the outset, I want to express my sincerest appreciation to our Division’s front office 

leadership: Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Jean Williams, Bruce Gelber, Eric Grant, and

Jonathan Brightbill, as well as Counsel and Chief of Staff Corinne Snow and former Counsel

Brandon Middleton, for their tireless efforts throughout 2017 to lead ENRD in achieving our 

Division’s vital mission. I would also like to express appreciation for the valuable support ENRD

receives from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Office of the Deputy Attorney General

(ODAG), and Office of the Associate Attorney General (OASG), particularly the attorneys in

those offices who have been the main points of contact for the work of our Division in 2017: 

Brian Morrissey (OAG); Andrew Goldsmith and Dan Loveland (ODAG); and Eric McArthur, Brian

Murray, and Jeremy Bylund (OASG).

I also deeply appreciate our attorneys and staff who have been recognized for the great work

they do. More details on their work is provided elsewhere in this report, but I would like

particularly to recognize Karen Wardzinski, chief of ENRD’s Law and Policy Section, who

received the 2017 Presidential Rank Award for her leadership on several cross-agency 

initiatives, and Josh Van Eaton, a senior attorney in our Environmental Enforcement Section, 

who won the prestigious Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal in 2017 for federal

employee of the year for his work on the Volkswagen enforcement matter. I also would like to

thank two of our staff members, Angeles Aponte and Jennifer Goldbetter, who volunteered to

deploy to Houston and Miami, respectively, on detail assignments to the Federal Emergency 

Management Administration (FEMA) to assist with hurricane relief efforts. 

This year, the Division has been focused on several key objectives: vigorously enforcing the 

environmental laws of the United States; promoting energy independence and economic

growth by reducing regulatory burdens and supporting infrastructure development;

strengthening national security; promoting cooperative federalism by partnering with states

and tribes; and protecting the public fisc. We have conducted extensive engagement not just 

with our client agencies but also within the legal community, with state, tribal, and local

entities, and the public at large. I have spoken to the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies; the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies; participants in the State Bar of

Texas’s “Environmental Superconference”; and the American Bar Association’s Section of

Environment, Energy, and Resources. ENRD leadership conducted site visits to Nogales, Arizona,

to tour the existing border infrastructure and telecommunications center with Customs and

Border Protection (CBP) agents; the Florida Everglades to tour the Loxahatchee National

4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife Refuge; Fort Lauderdale, Florida to attend a meeting of the 38th U.S. Coral Reef Task

Force; and the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest to discuss and see the area’s fish

hatcheries first-hand. 

At the core of all we do is the impartial rule of law. Recently, Attorney General Sessions stated:

“No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than

preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law.” Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein

also explained: “The rule of law is not just about words on paper. The words mean nothing

without people who apply them. The rule of law depends upon the character of the people who

enforce the law. If they uphold it faithfully, the result will be a high degree of consistency and

predictability. Those features are among the primary reasons our nation has thrived.” In

keeping with rule of law principles, ENRD will take action to protect public health and the 

environment where the law has been broken and environmental harm ensues. In our 

enforcement role we follow the law and the facts of a case wherever they take us. Our duty is

to enforce the laws of the United States as written. Our enforcement decisions also need to be

made in a rational way, which includes looking at the actual environmental benefits that may

be gained through the selected remedy. 

The Division had many enforcement successes this year. We obtained a number of court orders

requiring responsible parties to clean up hazardous waste and reimburse the government for 

cleanups conducted by the United States. We concluded landmark cases against Volkswagen

AG, which used “defeat devices” to cheat our air emissions laws. We filed civil claims against 

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, alleging it engaged in similar violations of the Clean Air Act and are

continuing to work with our partner agencies to investigate other possible bad actors in the 

auto industry. We secured the largest-ever penalty for crimes involving deliberate vessel

pollution — $40 million — against Princess Cruise Lines, a subsidiary of the world’s largest 

cruise company. In a settlement announced in October 2017, we required Denver-based PDC

Energy to spend approximately $19.7 million to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds

from 650 tank batteries and pay a $2.5 million civil penalty. In another settlement agreement, 

we negotiated the cleanup of 94 abandoned uranium mines. We have also criminally 

prosecuted more than 20 wildlife traffickers who harmed protected species.

The change in Administration also brought changes in policy priorities for the agencies that we 

represent. Through our representation of the United States in legal challenges to new policy 

initiatives at agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of

Interior (DOI), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), we have a critical role in paving the 

way for investments in infrastructure and energy security projects that will strengthen the U.S.

economy, as well as facilitate more robust border control and military operations to protect our 

national security. For example, ENRD has defended the federal permits issued for several

energy infrastructure projects, including the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, and has

resolved a number of critical cases to acquire land for improved border protection.

ENRD also works closely with the Department of Defense (DOD) to keep our nation safe, secure,

and resilient. This work is central to our mission, and it includes land acquisition for the

expansion of military bases, the defense of military programs aimed at ensuring our forces are

5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as prepared as possible, and the responsible management of our natural resources impacted by 

DOD activities. 

The Trump Administration is undertaking an ambitious agenda of regulatory reform, and the 

Division supports this effort by advising client agencies on high-priority rulemakings and

ensuring the effective defense of regulatory actions in court. The Division also is managing a

number of cases challenging agency regulations promulgated under previous administrations

that are under review pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders. Notable examples are

challenges to the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule. Our aim at ENRD is to avoid

unnecessary litigation, support the integrity of the administrative process, and conserve the

resources of the courts, the agencies, and other litigants, while also defending the rightful

prerogative of the new Administration to review the costs and benefits of regulations and to

chart a new direction where appropriate.

We also are working to support the Attorney General’s recent policies that further the 

Administration’s broader reform goals. For example, in the past some of our settlements

included payments to third parties who were neither victims nor parties to the lawsuit. In June 

2017 the Attorney General issued a memorandum restricting such settlement payments and

emphasizing that penalties in enforcement cases should be sent to the Treasury for Congress to

appropriate, rather than to third parties selected by unelected officials. We began

implementing this policy immediately. While the memorandum does permit the use of third

party payments in very limited circumstances to directly remedy environmental harm, those 

instances will not be routine. We agree with the Attorney General that any settlement funds

should go first to victims and then to the American people, not to third party interests.

Finally, ENRD takes seriously our role in protecting the public fisc. In FY2017 ENRD worked on

3,943 cases and matters, while maintaining a robust docket of nearly 7,000 cases and matters. 

We obtained over $4.8 billion in civil and criminal fines, penalties, and costs recovered. The

estimated value of federal injunctive relief obtained —clean-up and pollution-prevention

actions funded by private parties—exceeded $18.7 billion. ENRD also estimates it has saved the 

government over $360 million through the successful defense of claims brought against the

government. In cases where we do not prevail, the Division has sought to limit payments of

attorney’s fees to the extent possible under applicable law. For example, in FY2017 the Division

paid a total of approximately $661,000 in attorney’s fees under the fee-shifting provisions of

the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); by contrast, in fiscal year 2016 the comparable total

was $3.1 million, and in fiscal year 2015 it was $1.1 million.

In closing, I would like to point out a feature on the cover to this year’s report—a new ENRD

seal. This seal reflects the distinctive mission and rich history of ENRD, going back to the

Division’s origins in 1909, when it was established as the “Public Lands Division.” In the 

background is a majestic landscape showing Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve in

Alaska, derived from a photograph taken by a former ENRD attorney. Our new seal is meant to

convey a sense of respect for the Division’s mission within the broader Department of Justice 

6
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(DOJ) family, especially our role in the conservation of public lands and natural resources, as

well as the protection of clean water and clean air. This new seal was developed by ENRD’s

Executive Office based on input from senior leaders in the Division. The new seal was approved

by DOJ’s Justice Management Division on April 5, 2018.

I am proud of ENRD’s accomplishments this year. This Accomplishments Report discusses our 

Division’s most important work and demonstrates the high level of dedication and

professionalism among our attorneys and staff.

I am grateful for the opportunity to serve in ENRD in 2017 under the leadership of Attorney 

General Jeff Sessions, and I am immensely proud of the progress we have made together in

achieving ENRD’s mission. We are hopeful that the Senate will soon hold a vote to confirm 

nominee Jeff Clark to be Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for the Division. Once he is

confirmed, I know that under AAG Clark’s leadership the Division will carry forward with its

proud tradition of protecting our nation’s environment and natural resources in keeping with

the Constitution and laws of the United States. Even as we look ahead, we also remain grateful

for the tremendous contributions of past leaders of our Division. I want to express particular 

appreciation to John Cruden (AAG 2014-2017) and Ron Tenpas (AAG 2007-2008), both of whom 

have been a ready source of good advice to me over the last 16 months.

Jeffrey H. Wood 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice 

April 27, 2018 

7
Overview of the Environment 

and Natural Resources Division

Basin and Range National Monument, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management

8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview of the Environment and Natural Resources Division 

The Environment and Natural Resources Division was established in 1909, on the heels of the 

administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, who reminded us, “The Nation behaves well if

it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation

increased, and not impaired, in value.” On November 16, 1909, Attorney General George 

Wickersham signed a two-page order creating “The Public Lands Division” of the Department of

Justice to step into the breach and address the critical litigation that ensued. He assigned all

cases concerning “enforcement of the Public Land Law” and relating to Indian affairs to the new

Division and transferred a staff of nine—six attorneys and three stenographers—to carry out

those responsibilities.

As the nation grew and developed, so did the responsibilities of the Division, and its name

changed to the “Environment and Natural Resources Division” to better reflect those 

responsibilities. Over 108 years after our founding, ENRD is as mindful as ever of the strong

legacy that we have inherited and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead of us. The

Division has a main office in Washington, D.C., and field offices across the United States. It has a

staff of over 600 people, and is organized into ten sections. It currently has over 6,967 active 

cases and matters and has represented virtually every federal agency in connection with cases

arising in all 50 states and the United States territories.

One of the Division’s primary responsibilities is to enforce federal civil and criminal

environmental laws, such as the CAA, the CWA, the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), RCRA, and CERCLA. 

The main federal agencies that the Division represents in these areas are the EPA, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and federal natural resource 

trustee agencies, such as DOI, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Division’s sections that carry out this

work are the Environmental Enforcement Section (EES), the Environmental Defense Section 

(EDS), and the Environmental Crimes Section (ECS). The Chiefs of these sections are Tom 

Mariani, Letitia Grishaw, and Deborah L. Harris, respectively.

A substantial portion of the Division’s work includes litigation under a wide array of statutes

related to the management of public lands and associated natural and cultural resources. All

varieties of public lands are affected by ENRD’s litigation docket, ranging from entire

ecosystems, such as the nation’s largest sub-tropical wetlands (the Everglades) and rain forest 

(the Tongass), to individual rangelands or wildlife refuges, to historic battlefields and

monuments. Examples of ENRD’s land and natural resources litigation include original actions

before the U.S. Supreme Court to address interstate boundary and water allocation issues; suits

challenging federal agency decisions that affect economic, recreational, and religious uses of

the national parks, national forests, and other public lands; challenges brought by individual

Native Americans and Indian tribes relating to the United States’ trust responsibility; and

actions to recover royalties and revenues from development of natural resources, including

timber and subsurface minerals. The Division primarily represents the land management 

agencies of the United States in these cases, including USDA’s Forest Service and the many

9
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

components of DOI, such as the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Natural Resources Section (NRS), led by Lisa L. Russell, 

is primarily responsible for these cases.

The Division’s Wildlife and Marine Resources Section (WMRS) handles civil cases arising under

the fish and wildlife conservation laws, including suits defending agency actions under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), which protects endangered and threatened animal and plant 

species; the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which protects marine mammals, such as whales, 

seals, and dolphins; and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 

which regulates fishery resources. The Chief of the Wildlife and Marine Resources Section is

Seth Barsky. The Environmental Crimes Section brings criminal prosecutions under these laws

and the Lacey Act against people who are found smuggling wildlife and plants into or out of the 

United States or across state boundaries. The main federal agencies that ENRD represents in

this area are the FWS and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Division cases frequently involve allegations that a federal program or action violates

constitutional provisions or environmental statutes. Examples include Fifth Amendment takings

claims, in which landowners seek compensation based on the allegation that a government

action has precluded development of their property, and suits alleging that a federal agency has

failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both takings and NEPA

cases can affect vital federal programs, such as those governing the nation’s defense 

capabilities (including military preparedness, weapons programs, nuclear materials

management, and military research), renewable energy development, and food supply. In other

cases, plaintiffs challenge regulations promulgated to implement the nation’s pollution control

statutes, such as the CAA and CWA, or activities at federal facilities that are claimed to violate

such statutes. The Division’s main clients in these areas include DOD, EPA, the Corps, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT), and DOI’s various components. The Natural Resources 

Section and the Environmental Defense Section handle these cases. 

Another portion of the Division’s caseload consists of eminent domain litigation. This important 

work, undertaken with Congressional direction or authority, involves the acquisition of land for

the federal government, including for national-security related purposes, national parks, and

the construction of federal buildings. The Land Acquisition Section (LAS) is responsible for this

litigation. The Chief of the Land Acquisition Section is Andrew Goldfrank.

The Division’s Indian Resources Section (IRS) litigates on behalf of federal agencies to protect 

the resources of federally recognized Indian tribes and their members; most of these resources

are held in trust by the United States. This includes defending against challenges to statutes and

agency actions that protect tribal interests, and bringing suits on behalf of federal agencies to

protect tribal rights and natural resources. The Chief of the Indian Resources Section is Craig

Alexander. The rights and resources at issue include water rights, the ability to acquire

reservation land, and hunting and fishing rights, among others. In addition, the Natural 

Resources Section defends claims asserted by Indian tribes and tribal members against the

10
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States. The main federal agency that the Division represents in connection with this

work is Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

The Appellate Section handles the appeals of all cases litigated by Division attorneys in the trial

courts, and works closely with the Department of Justice’s Office of the Solicitor General on

ENRD cases that reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The Chief of the Appellate Section is James

Kilbourne.

The Law and Policy Section(LPS) advises and assists the Assistant Attorney General on

environmental and natural resources legal and policy questions, particularly those that affect 

multiple sections in the Division. It reviews and analyzes legislative proposals on environmental

and natural resources issues of importance to the Division, handles the Division’s response to

congressional requests, provides comments on behalf of ENRD on federal agency rulemakings, 

and handles, with the Appellate Section, amicus curiae participation in cases of importance to

the United States. The Law and Policy Section leads the Division’s efforts on international

issues, often in collaboration with the Environmental Crimes Section, and handles various

special projects on behalf of Division leadership. Attorneys in the Law and Policy Section also

serve as the Division’s ethics and professional responsibility officer and counselor, its

alternative dispute resolution counselor, and coordinate the Division’s Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA) and correspondence work. The Chief of the Law and Policy Section is Karen

Wardzinski.

The Executive Office (EO) is the operational management and administrative support section

for ENRD. It provides financial management, human resources, information technology, 

procurement, facilities, security, litigation support, and other important services to the 

Division’s workforce. The Executive Office takes advantage of cutting-edge technology to

provide sophisticated automation facilities to ENRD employees. By utilizing new technologies

and innovative business processes — and by in-sourcing services traditionally provided by 

contractors and equipping employees to better serve themselves — the Executive Office is able

to achieve significant cost savings for the American public on an annual basis. The Executive 

Officer of the Division is Andrew Collier.

The Office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAAG) is a cadre of extraordinary attorneys who

ensure the Division’s work is accomplished in a timely and professional manner each day.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Grant supervises the Appellate Section and Indian

Resources Section. Jonathan Brightbill supervises the Environmental Defense Section. Career 

Deputy Jean Williams supervises the Natural Resources Section, the Environmental Crimes

Section, and the Wildlife and Marine Resources Section. Career Deputy Bruce Gelber supervises

the Environmental Enforcement Section, the Land and Acquisition Section, and the Law and

Policy Section. In addition, Cynthia Ferguson is the Counselor for Environmental Justice, Andrea

Berlowe is the Counselor for State and Local Matters, Daron Carreiro is the Counselor for Indian

Affairs, and Sarah Himmelhoch is the Senior Litigation Counsel for E-Discovery. The Chief of

Staff and Counsel is Corinne Snow, and Justin Heminger is the Counsel and Special Assistant.

11
Recognizing Our Staff

Department of Justice

12
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Our Staff 

In ENRD, we are proud of the work we do and the people who do it. Our attorneys and staff

have been recognized for the great work they did in a number of areas this past year. 

Josh Van Eaton of the Environmental Enforcement Section was awarded the Samuel J. Heyman

Service to America Medal in 2017 for federal employee of the year, along with two individuals

from the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Van Eaton, co-counsel Bethany Engel, and the 

rest of the EES team, working closely with EPA, halted a scheme by Volkswagen to evade 

emission standards with respect to approximately 590,000 diesel vehicles that were equipped

with “defeat devices,” and helped secure precedent-setting relief, including up to $15.9 billion

to buy back or modify the vehicles and address the environmental harm from the violations, 

and a record $1.45 billion civil penalty.

The 2017 Presidential Rank Award was presented to Karen Wardzinski, Chief of the Law and

Policy Section. Ms. Wardzinski was recognized for her leadership of several innovative crossagency projects involving important, emerging problems where ENRD previously did not have a

leadership role. Her leadership and the work of her team has allowed ENRD to make substantial

progress on several key Administration priorities, including wildlife trafficking, timber

trafficking, and the protection of Native American families through the Indian Child Welfare Act.

ENRD presented its 2017 Muskie-Chafee Award to Jon M. (Jack) Lipshultz, Assistant Chief in the 

Environmental Defense Section. The Muskie-Chafee Award honors current or former federal

employees who, through their work and dedication, have made significant contributions

toward protecting our environment. Throughout his 25-year DOJ career, Jack Lipshultz has

made enormous contributions to the development and defense of EPA’s regulatory program,

particularly under the CAA. In his current position as Assistant Chief, he manages EDS’s petition

for review practice, defending litigation challenging EPA’s regulatory initiatives under the

pollution control statutes that often presents issues of substantial public interest and

extraordinary technical complexity. The Muskie-Chafee Award recognized Mr. Lipshultz’s great 

contributions to the development of the Clean Air regulatory program.

The Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service – Yellow Book Team – was presented to

Brian M. Holly, Chief Appraiser and Georgia Garthwaite, Acting Division Counsel for Title

Matters in the Land Acquisition Section for their extraordinary work in revising the Uniform

Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, commonly known as the Yellow Book.

The John Marshall Award – Support of Litigation – Enbridge Case Team was presented to Joseph

Warren and Steve Willey, Senior Counsel in the Environmental Enforcement Section, for 

orchestrating a landmark settlement of CWA and OPA claims arising from two oil spills from

pipelines operated by Enbridge Energy and affiliates. The settlement, embodied in two judicial

consent decrees, includes $62 million in civil penalties, an additional $62 million in natural

resource restoration work and damages, and sweeping improvements to Enbridge’s operation

and maintenance practices.

The Attorney General presented the John Marshall Award for Asset Forfeiture to Mary E. 

Hollingsworth, a Trial Attorney in the Wildlife and Marine Resources Section, for her

13
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

instrumental role in developing and implementing a strategy for pursuing civil forfeiture actions

of dogs seized as part of criminal raids of those suspected of engaging in illegal dogfighting

ventures.

The Attorney General presented an Award for Outstanding Service in Freedom of Information

Administration to Amber B. Blaha, an Assistant Section Chief in the Law and Policy Section, for

showing foresight in planning and executing a series of innovations in the Division’s Freedom of

Information Act processing, including the use of electronic document review systems. She is a

pioneer in training and educating ENRD litigators as to the potential effects of FOIA rules on

ENRD litigation.

The Attorney General’s Award for Excellence in Legal Support (Legal Assistance Category) was

presented to Tawana S. McCoy-Smith, Legal Administrative Specialist in the Environmental

Defense Section. Ms. McCoy-Smith has extraordinary legal support skills, and is the Section’s

expert in using the WebTA time and attendance system, as well as the go-to person for 

resolving travel issues regarding the complex and sometimes difficult-to-navigate travel

application, E2 Solutions.

The Attorney General’s Award for Excellence in Administrative Support (Secretarial Category)

was presented to Gail P. Robinson, Legal Administrative Specialist in the Indian Resources

Section for her ability to quickly embrace and develop expertise in new software systems and

skillfully serve as the interface with other administrative services within the Department and

Division.

Matthew Littleton and Jennifer Neumann of the Appellate Section, and Patrick Jacobi and

Sonya Shea of EDS, received Bronze Medal Awards from EPA on November 8, 2017, for work on

the successful appeal to the Fourth Circuit in the EDS matter known as Murray Energy v. EPA. 

Kent Hanson and Austin Saylor of EDS were awarded EPA Bronze Medals for work on the 

Pikewood CWA section 404 enforcement case, United States v. Greer Industries, et al. (N.D. W. 

Va.), resolved via consent decree in early 2017. 

Amy Dona, also of EDS, received the Assistant Administrator’s Award for Regional Excellence for

work with EPA Region 1, as a member of the Bayley Property Wetlands Case Team. The team

was commended for their efforts to resolve a highly complex CWA section 404 enforcement 

case, restoring 65 acres of critical wetlands in Maine.

Senior ECS attorney Jennifer Blackwell received an Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys Director’s

Award for her work on the Volkswagen prosecution.

In July 2017, Christopher Witwer, a trial attorney with EES, received a Meritorious Service 

Medal for his work and leadership associated with multiple legal teams in the Army Reserve. 

EES senior attorney Tom Benson received an award from EPA Region 5 for his work with an

Assistant U.S. Attorney on a CWA case against American Commercial Lines. The case was

settled after filing for a larger penalty than the team demanded before filing.

14
 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob Williams and Mary Hollingsworth of WMRS received DHS’s 2017 Award for Fraud

Investigation. This award was in recognition of their efforts in investigating and obtaining civil

forfeiture of timber illegally harvested in the Peruvian Amazon and imported into the United

States in violation of U.S. law.

The Division’s Environmental Crimes Section received an award for outstanding investigative 

accomplishments from DHS for their work in targeting importers of illegally harvested timber. 

15
Vigorously Enforcing 

Our Environmental Laws

Rogue River, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management

16
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vigorously Enforcing Our Environmental Laws 

Robust enforcement of our nation’s environmental laws remains a high priority and a vital

feature of the Division’s mission. In pursuing our enforcement mission, we strive to adhere to

the impartial rule of law, enhance cooperative federalism, exercise pragmatic decisionmaking

by employing the full range of enforcement tools, coordinate and collaborate with lead

agencies and U.S. Attorneys, and, as with all of our efforts, protect taxpayers and the public fisc.

Our priorities include a focus on clean water, clean air, and clean land, and while maintaining

the integrity of our environmental laws and programs. We fight fraud, recover taxpayer funds, 

fight violent and organized crime, and protect America’s workers, competitiveness, and

infrastructure. These principles and priorities are set forth in a March 12, 2018 memorandum

from Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Wood.

The Division’s Environmental Enforcement Section brings civil actions to enforce the nation’s

environmental laws — CERCLA, RCRA, the CAA, the CWA, the OPA and others — to ensure that 

all Americans enjoy clean air, water, and land. Civil enforcement results in the imposition of

deterrent penalties, the recovery of costs government agencies incur responding to spills and

contaminated sites, and injunctive relief — things like site cleanups and the installation of

pollution-control equipment. The civil enforcement program also has a substantial bankruptcy 

practice.

The Division’s Environmental Crimes Section is responsible for prosecuting criminal violations

that arise under a wide variety of statutes. In addition to criminal prosecutions pursuant to the 

environmental laws mentioned above, criminal work also covers wildlife crime, worker safety 

crime, and animal welfare crime. Prosecutions often include general criminal violations such as

conspiracy, false statements, obstruction of justice, smuggling, and wire fraud. We work

cooperatively with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and a host of federal investigative agencies in

prosecuting these cases. Our work this year included several successful multi-district, as well as

transnational, prosecutions of great programmatic importance. During this time period, ENRD 

convicted 89 defendants in 56 cases. Those convictions yielded almost $3 million in criminal

penalties and 102 years of confinement.

Strong Enforcement Results 

As illustrated in the following pages of this report, 2017 was another successful year for the 

Division’s environmental enforcement program.1

The Division secured $1.57 billion in civil penalties in 2017—our second best year over the past 

20 years. Much of that penalty amount came from the CAA defeat device case against 

1 The statistics are based on annual periods from January 20, 2017 to January 19, 2018, and the same time periods

for prior years (for example, January 20, 2016 to January 19, 2017).

17
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volkswagen, which the Division concluded in 2017. Excluding the Volkswagen penalty, the 

Division recovered $121 million in civil penalties, which by itself is higher than the civil penalties

the Division recovered in 12 of the last 20 years. We also obtained more than $1 billion in

injunctive relief under the Superfund law—more than the Division’s injunctive relief figure

under that statute in all but two of the last 20 years. 

At the same time, consistent with historical trends, the results secured by the Division continue 

to flow from relatively fewer civil enforcement complaints than in prior years. Twenty years ago

(1997), the Division filed approximately 300 civil enforcement cases. Ten years ago (2007), we

filed about 200 cases, and three years ago (2014), we filed about 130. In 2017 the Division filed 

95 civil enforcement cases.

Many factors have contributed to this trend over the past two decades. For example, many civil

enforcement cases that the Division has filed in recent years involve many more, and far more

complicated, violations of law than was typical in cases filed 20 years ago. In addition, many 

recent cases address multiple facilities—an approach seen less often in prior decades.

Regardless of the number of complaints filed each year, our Division is focused on achieving

effective enforcement results. The results that we seek are the strong and vigorous civil and

criminal enforcement of our nation’s environmental laws, consistent with the rule of law and

other sound enforcement principles.

Superfund: Requiring Cleanups and Recovering Government Expenditures 

By filing suits under CERCLA, the Division requires responsible parties to clean up hazardous

waste and to reimburse the government for cleanups conducted by the United States. The 

Superfund program operates on the principle that those responsible for contaminating a site,

not taxpayers, should pay for a site’s cleanup and primarily deals with contamination left

behind by past operations. The Division also brings cases under RCRA, which primarily regulates

the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes at on-going operations.

In FY2017, courts approved 38 CERCLA settlements negotiated by the Division, requiring more

than an estimated one billion dollars of clean-up work and recovering over $117 million in costs

expended by government agencies.

In United States v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (D. Ariz.), the United States and the Navajo

Nation entered into a CERCLA settlement agreement with two subsidiaries of a mining company 

for the cleanup of 94 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation. Under the settlement, 

which calls for cleanups estimated to cost over $600 million, the companies will perform the

work and the United States will contribute approximately half of the costs. The work will be

conducted under the oversight of EPA, in collaboration with the Navajo Nation Environmental

Protection Agency. The Navajo Nation — in the Four Corners area, within Utah, New Mexico, 

and Arizona — is rich in uranium, a radioactive ore used in nuclear weapons and nuclear-power

generation. Many private entities, including the predecessors of the settling companies, mined

18
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uranium ore on or near the Navajo Nation between 1944 and 1986. The federal government,

through the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), was the sole purchaser of uranium until 1966.

In United States v. Pharmacia, LLC (S.D. Ill.), the Division reached a settlement that requires

three companies to clean up the six former waste disposal sites in the Sauget Area 1 Superfund

Site in Sauget, Illinois. The estimated cost of the work required by the settlement is $14.8

million. In addition, the companies reimbursed the United States for $475,000 in EPA response 

costs. The site — in the American Bottoms region across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, 

Missouri — received industrial wastes from as early as 1931 until 1988. Taking into account 

work previously performed at the site, over $50 million is being devoted to cleaning up the

contamination. 

Keeping Our Air Clean 

The CAA protects the nation’s air in several ways. Two related parts of the CAA — the newsource-review program and the prevention-of-significant-deterioration program — require 

large industrial facilities to obtain permits and install and operate state‐of‐the‐art air pollution 

controls before the facilities make modifications that significantly increase emissions. A

different part of the Act regulates cars, trucks, and other vehicles — “mobile sources” in the 

language of the statute. Another part of the CAA establishes national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants. Finally, part of the Act is aimed at preventing accidents and accidental

releases of hazardous chemicals.

The Division brought a number of CAA cases against German automaker Volkswagen AG (VW) 

related to the vehicles’ use of “defeat devices” to cheat on emissions tests. A “defeat device” is

illegal software that detects when a car is being tested for compliance with emissions standards

and turns on full emissions controls only during the testing process. During normal driving

conditions, the software renders certain control systems inoperative, greatly increasing

emissions. We brought both civil and criminal charges against VW.

In In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales, Practices, and Products Liability (MDL, 

N.D. Cal.), the Division entered into three consent decrees to conclude the United States’ civil

case alleging that the automaker violated the CAA by selling nearly 600,000 cars equipped with

defeat devices that lowered emissions during emissions tests, but allowed the cars to emit 

pollution significantly in excess of compliant levels during normal operation. Under the three

decrees, the automaker agreed to pay $1.45 billion to resolve EPA’s civil penalty claims, 

implement a number of corporate-governance reforms, test emissions while cars are in use, fix

or buy back the cars on the road, and address associated environmental harm from the 

violations. The injunctive relief obtained in the consent decrees was estimated to cost up to

$15.9 billion. 

The Division brought criminal charges against VW in United States v. Volkswagen AG (E.D. 

Mich.) in January 2017. VW was charged with and agreed to plead guilty to participating in a

conspiracy to defraud the United States and VW’s U.S. customers and to violate the CAA. VW

19
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

committed these crimes by lying and misleading the EPA and U.S. customers about whether

nearly 600,000 VW, Audi, and Porsche branded diesel vehicles complied with U.S. emissions

standards, using cheating software to circumvent the U.S. testing process and concealing

material facts about its cheating from U.S. regulators. VW was also charged with obstruction of

justice for destroying documents related to the scheme, and with the separate crime of

importing these cars into the United States by means of false statements about the vehicles’ 

compliance with emissions limits. On April 21, 2017, VW was sentenced to pay a $2.8 billion

fine, complete a three-year term of probation, and implement an environmental compliance 

plan.

The Division also brought criminal charges against individual VW employees. Seven VW

employees and one Audi employee were charged for their roles in the nearly ten-year 

conspiracy. Two of these employees entered guilty pleas and have been sentenced. Former VW

engineer James Liang was sentenced on August 25, 2017, to 40 months’ incarceration and

ordered to pay a $200,000 fine. Former VW general manager Oliver Schmidt was sentenced on

December 6, 2017 to 84 months’ incarceration and ordered to pay a $400,000 fine. 

The Division has been active in bringing other CAA actions as well. In United States v. Vopak 

Terminal Deer Park, Inc. (S.D. Tex.), the United States and State of Texas reached a settlement 

with a tank-storage company to reduce volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollution

at a chemical-storage terminal and a wastewater-treatment plant in Deer Park, Texas. Under

the agreement, the company will install state-of-the-art air pollution controls at the plant and

use infrared cameras to detect harmful air pollution from the facility’s chemical-storage tanks. 

The company will also hire a third-party auditor to improve the company’s waste management

and evaluate compliance with the settlement. The company paid a civil penalty of $2.5 million,

split between the United States and the State of Texas. 

In United States v. Maynard Steel Casting Co. (E.D. Wis.), the Division negotiated a settlement 

with a steel-casting company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Division alleged that the company 

violated many provisions of the CAA, including permit limits on particulate-matter (PM) and

manganese. The consent decree requires the company to evaluate the effectiveness of its airpollution-control equipment and take corrective action as necessary; perform regular stack

tests; conduct opacity monitoring using an innovative night-time monitoring protocol; install

leak-detection systems on its baghouses; and perform air-dispersion modeling to evaluate

compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10. The pollutioncontrol measures are estimated to cost more than $750,000. The company will also pay a civil

penalty of $25,000, based on an ability-to-pay analysis. The facility — located near a hospital,

school, and public park — is in an area that is predominantly Latino and African American and in

which nearly half of the residents live below the poverty level. 

In United States v. Harcros Chemicals Inc. (D. Kan.), the Division reached a settlement that

resolved claims that a chemical manufacturer violated provisions of the CAA aimed at 

preventing accidental releases of chemicals that can have serious consequences for public

health and the environment. The company — which operates 31 facilities in 19 states —

20
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

brought the violations to the attention of the EPA. The company will audit 28 of its facilities to

identify and correct any potential violations of either the risk-management regulation or the 

statutory duty to identify hazards and maintain a safe facility. Many of the facilities are located

near minority and low-income communities. The first audits will be done at facilities near those 

communities. The company will also install enhanced fire-suppression equipment — foambased sprinkler systems — at eight of its facilities. Finally, the company paid a $950,000

penalty. The settlement, announced in July 2017, was approved by the court shortly after the

close of the fiscal year. 

Keeping Our Water Clean 

The CWA — the primary federal statute preventing water pollution — regulates pollution from

both industrial and municipal facilities. The CWA also prohibits spills of oil and hazardous

substances. OPA is specifically aimed at preventing oil spills.

Several statutes (the CWA, OPA, CERCLA, and others) authorize lawsuits to recover damages for

injuries to natural resources (wildlife and habitat) when injuries will remain after the cleanup of

a Superfund site or an oil spill. 

Ensuring the Integrity of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems 

Through enforcement of the CWA, the Division addresses one of the most pressing

infrastructure issues in the nation — the discharge of untreated or poorly treated sewage from 

aging collection and treatment systems. Raw sewage contains organic matter, toxics, metals, 

and pathogens that threaten public health, contaminate fish, and deter recreational use of

beaches, rivers, and streams. Untreated and poorly treated sewage often contains total

suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, and “biological oxygen demand” (organic matter that

consumes oxygen as it is broken down by aquatic organisms). High levels of total suspended

solids increase water temperatures, decrease oxygen levels, and, by blocking sunlight, inhibit 

photosynthesis. Too much nitrogen and phosphorus can cause algal blooms that contribute to

the creation of hypoxic “dead zones,” where oxygen levels are so low that little can survive. Our 

work also helps to protect low-income and minority communities in older urban areas with

serious infrastructure problems. In FY2017, courts approved seven major Division settlements, 

which collectively required an estimated $525 million in infrastructure improvements and over

$725,000 in civil penalties. 

One way the Division protects municipal wastewater treatment systems is by bringing actions

against private entities called “indirect dischargers” that send harmful wastewater to publicly 

owned treatment works. In United States v. EMD Millipore Corporation (D.N.H.), the Division

settled with a manufacturing facility in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, in March 2017. The Division’s

complaint alleged that the manufacturing facility violated the CWA and the facility’s

pretreatment permit when the facility introduced pollutants into the town’s treatment plant

that caused the town’s plant to discharge illegal amounts of pollutants. Under the settlement, 

21
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the manufacturer will upgrade its private treatment plant, sample its wastewater on a

prescribed schedule, and pay a $385,000 civil penalty. 

Overflows from municipal sewage collection systems often occur in areas used by the public, 

including children, and pose a significant threat to public health and remain a leading cause of

water quality impairment. Our principal objective in negotiations in these cases is to reach

agreement requiring the treatment works to achieve compliance with the CWA. The consent

decree in United States v. City of Haverhill (D. Mass.) requires the city to identify and fix 

conditions in its collection system that cause overflows from its combined sewer system, 

conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its wastewater treatment plant and make needed

upgrades, and eliminate illicit discharges to the city’s separate storm sewer system. The work

undertaken by the city will cost approximately $95 million. In United States v. Sanitary District 

of Hammond (N.D. Ind.), the Division and the Indiana Department of Environmental

Management reached an agreement with the Sanitary District designed to resolve longstanding violations of the CWA involving discharges of untreated sewage into the Grand

Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers. At an estimated cost of $240 million, the city will make

significant infrastructure improvements and develop a long-term control plan to limit combined

sewer overflows and prevent sewer backups.

Protecting the Nation’s Waters from Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater often carries pollution and sediment from construction sites into local waterways,

damaging water quality. Under the CWA, developers and contractors responsible for operations

at construction sites one acre in size or larger are required to implement stormwater pollution

prevention plans to keep soil and contaminants from running into nearby waterways. 

Stormwater typically carries soil and contaminants off of construction sites at a rate 10 to 20

times greater than the rate at which they run off agricultural lands. The pollution prevention

plans can include measures such as sediment barriers and other means of reducing the flow of

stormwater onto and off of the construction site. Many homebuilders, before starting

construction activities, must obtain coverage under a stormwater permit (often by submitting a

notice of intent to be covered by a “general permit”).

In United States v. NVR, Inc. (D.N.J.), the Division entered into a settlement with a homebuilder

that repeatedly ignored the permitting rules aimed at controlling and minimizing pollution from 

uncontrolled stormwater runoff at dozens of construction sites in New Jersey and New York. 

The builder paid a civil penalty of $425,000 and will undertake — at all of its construction sites

nation-wide — management, inspection, training, and other efforts to ensure future 

compliance. 

Protecting Our Oceans, Rivers, and Streams 

The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable 

waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines in quantities that may be harmful to the

environment or public health. The OPA makes parties responsible for vessels and facilities, like 

drilling rigs, liable for the costs and damages associated with discharges of oil, or threats of

22
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

discharges of oil, into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Penalties paid for oil

spills are deposited in the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is used to pay for federal

first responders to oil spills and to compensate for oil-spill damages.

We have filed, and settled, a number of civil cases in this regard, securing significant penalties

against violators. For example, in United States v. Logan Oil, LLC (S.D. Miss.), an oil-tank

operator agreed to pay $1 million to reimburse the United States for costs incurred responding

to an oil spill from a tank battery that spread along ten miles of the Chickasawhay River near

Shubuta, Mississippi.

In United States v. Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P. (N.D. Okla.), an oil-pipeline operator agreed

to a settlement for alleged violations of the CWA related to three spills of gasoline, diesel, and

jet fuel. The spills took place in Texas City, Texas (gasoline); Nemaha, Nebraska (diesel fuel and

jet fuel); and El Dorado, Kansas (diesel fuel). The three spills combined released a total of

approximately 5,177 barrels of petroleum products. The company agreed to complete 

approximately $16 million of injunctive relief across its 11,000-mile pipeline system and pay a

$2 million civil penalty. The consent decree was entered in May 2017.

The Division also has a robust program for criminally prosecuting shipping companies and crew 

for the intentional discharges of pollutants from ocean-going vessels. In FY2017, criminal

penalties imposed in these cases totaled more than $52 million in fines and 18 months of

confinement.

For example, in December 2016, Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy, 

obstruction, and violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships Act (APPS) related to

deliberate pollution of the seas and intentional acts to cover up its conduct, in United States v. 

Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (S.D. Fla.). The case against Princess related to illegal overboard

dumping of oil-contaminated waste and falsification of official logs in order to conceal the 

discharges, which were found to have taken place on five Princess ships. Princess is a subsidiary

of Carnival Corporation, which owns and operates multiple cruise lines and collectively 

comprises the world’s largest cruise company. On April 19, 2017, Princess was sentenced to pay 

a $40 million penalty – the largest-ever fine for crimes involving deliberate vessel pollution –

and was also ordered to complete a five-year term of probation. During the period of

probation, all of the related Carnival cruise ship companies trading in the United States are

required to implement an environmental compliance plan that includes independent audits by 

an outside company and oversight by a court-appointed monitor. The court also ordered that

$1 million be awarded to the British engineer who first reported the illegal discharges to the

British Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which in turn provided the evidence to the U.S. Coast 

Guard.

On August 31, 2017, the operator of a fishing vessel in American Samoa pleaded guilty to two

counts of violating APPS by maintaining a false oil record book and a false garbage record book,

in United States v. Yuh Fa Fishery (Vanuatu) Co. Ltd. (D.D.C.). The engineers aboard the F/V Yuh

Fa No. 201 failed to document the illegal overboard dumping of oily bilge water into the South

23
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pacific. They also made several modifications to the vessel’s piping system that allowed the 

vessel’s oily bilge water and sludge to be discharged overboard. In addition, the ship’s captains

failed to accurately record the disposal of garbage generated during extended fishing trips. As a

result, tons of discarded oil sludge, waste oil, oily bilge water, and garbage were unaccounted

for. The company was sentenced to pay a $1.875 million fine, make a $625,000 community

service payment to the National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa, and serve a five-year 

term of probation, during which vessels owned or operated by the company are barred from

entering any port or place of the United States.

The case United States v. Aegean Shipping Management (D.S.C.) also relates to the dumping of

oily bilge water. During a Coast Guard inspection of the T/V Green Sky, three crewmembers

reported multiple instances and methods of unlawful discharges of oily bilge water directly into

the sea. During the inspection, the current chief engineer, Herbert Julian, denied having any 

knowledge of these discharges and also denied that the vessel had a sounding log. The 

crewmembers alleged that the current and prior chief engineers and the second engineer all

ordered them to conduct the illegal discharges. The captain of the vessel pleaded guilty prior to

indictment, and the operator of the vessel and three engineers were indicted for conspiracy,

APPS violations, and obstruction. Upon pleading guilty to an APPS violation and obstruction, the 

ship’s operator was ordered to pay a fine of $1.7 million and make a community service 

payment of $300,000 to the Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. A jury 

convicted the two chief engineers of APPS violations and obstruction, and on August 10, 2017, 

they were sentenced to time served followed by a one-year term of supervised release, during

which they are barred from entering any port or place of the United States. 

Protecting Wetlands 

Continuing our enforcement efforts under the wetlands-protection provision of the CWA, the

Division reached a settlement with John Duarte and Duarte Nursery, Inc., which agreed to pay 

a large civil penalty and to preserve and restore creeks, streams, and wetlands to resolve 

violations of the Act on property located in Tehama County, California, in Duarte Nursery, Inc. 

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (E.D. Cal.). Duarte agreed to pay $1.1 million in civil penalties

and mitigation for 22 acres of disturbed streams and wetlands and to permanently protect 

creeks on the property that are connected to the Sacramento River. The agreement follows a

federal court determination in 2016 finding Duarte liable for violating the CWA. The court 

entered the consent decree on December 7, 2017.

On September 19, 2017, the Division obtained a favorable summary ruling in Orchard Hill 

Building Company v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (N.D. Ill.), which was a challenge by a

residential developer to a CWA section 404 regulatory jurisdiction determination concerning a

property in Tinley Park, Illinois. The Corps had found the presence of approximately 13 acres of

jurisdictional wetlands on the property and found that the prior converted cropland exemption

did not apply. The court upheld the Corps’ finding that the wetlands on the site “significantly 

affect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Little Calumet River,” upholding as

reasonable the Corps’ findings regarding the site wetlands’ impacts on flood reduction, storm

24
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

water storage, filtering, and retaining pollutants. It also upheld the Corps’ finding that, despite 

the prior conversion of wetlands on the site to farming before December 1985, the wetlands

had not been farmed since 1996, wetland conditions had returned, and therefore the prior

converted cropland exemption had been abandoned.

Keeping Restricted-Use Pesticides out of the Home 

On March 23, 2017, Terminix International Company LP and U.S. Virgin Islands operation

Terminix International USVI LLC pleaded guilty to illegally applying fumigants containing toxic

methyl bromide in multiple residential locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, in violation of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, in United States v. Terminix Intl Company LP 

and Terminix Intl USVI LLC (D.V.I.). The illegal applications included a March 2015 fumigation of

a St. John condominium resort complex that caused devastating injuries to a family of four

staying above a fumigated unit. As part of the plea agreement, Terminix ceased all use of

methyl bromide. On November 20, 2017, Terminix was sentenced to pay a total of $10 million

in criminal fines, community service, and restitution payments. Specifically, Terminix, USVI will

pay $4 million in fines and $1 million in restitution to the EPA for response and clean-up costs at 

the St. John resort. Terminix LP will pay a fine of $4 million and will perform community service 

related to training commercial pesticide applicators in fumigation practices and conduct a

separate health services training program.

Preventing Renewable Fuel Fraud 

Through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

Congress obligated fuel producers and importers to produce specific annual volumes of

renewable fuel, or in the alternative, to purchase credits (called Renewable Identification

Numbers or RINs) representing renewable fuel made elsewhere. EPA is responsible for 

developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United

States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. RINs can be traded or sold to refiners

and fuel importers or exporters to help them comply with the renewable fuels program. 

Exporters of renewable fuels must retire their associated RINs because the fuel is no longer

available in the United States. A robust market for RINs has developed, and while prices

fluctuate, a single RIN (representing approximately 2/3 of a gallon of fuel) is often worth a

dollar or more. Ensuring the integrity of this program is a Division priority. 

In United States v. Chemoil Corporation (N.D. Cal.), the Division alleged that a fuel-trading

company exported at least 48.5 million gallons of biodiesel from 2011 to 2013 without retiring

the more than 72 million RINs that were associated with the fuel. The settlement approved by 

the court required the exporter to retire 65 million renewable fuel credits. Those RINs, along

with an additional 7.7 million RINs retired by the company leading up to the settlement, had a

market value at the time of the settlement of more than $71 million. The company also paid a

$27 million civil penalty, the largest in the history of the EPA’s fuel programs. 

25
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our criminal attorneys, in partnership with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and criminal investigators

from the EPA, the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Transportation, 

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have successfully prosecuted several individuals and

corporations involved in RIN fraud in FY2017. Eight defendants were sentenced to lengthy 

prison terms (totaling 694 months’ imprisonment) and ordered to pay over $107 million in

restitution for various multistate schemes to defraud RIN buyers and U.S. taxpayers by 

fraudulently generating and selling RIN credits and claiming tax credits.

Restoring Injuries to Natural Resources 

When discharges of oil or releases of hazardous substances injure natural resources such as

wildlife or habitat, the United States, states, and Native American tribes can sue under CERCLA,

the OPA, the CWA, and other statutes for “natural resource damages” (NRD). The statutes

specify that recoveries for NRD claims must be used to restore, replace, or acquire the 

equivalent of the resources that were injured by the oil or hazardous substances.

Funds resulting from NRD claims have been used to restore fish hatcheries, for example. In

United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (W.D. Va.), releases of mercury from a

former industrial facility in Waynesboro, Virginia, affected over 100 miles of river and

thousands of acres of floodplain and riparian habitat. The former owner of the facility and the

natural resource trustees — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Commonwealth of Virginia —

worked cooperatively to identify potential restoration projects to benefit the affected natural

resources. On July 28, after an evidentiary hearing and supplemental briefing, the district court 

approved the settlement negotiated by the Division and Virginia. The former owner agreed to

pay the trustees just over $42 million and fund the design and implementation of renovations

at the Front Royal Fish Hatchery, estimated to cost up to $10 million. 

NRD funds also have been used to protect coral reefs. After an oil tanker ran aground near

Puerto Rico and damaged over 3,000 square meters of coral-reef habitat, the Division

negotiated a settlement with the vessel’s owner and operator under which the two companies

paid a total of $1.9 million: $1.7 million for restoration projects and $192,000 in government

assessment costs in United States v. Suez Shipping North America LLC (D.P.R.). The restoration

money will be used for rebuilding reefs and propagating coral.

NRD funds further have been used to restore Superfund sites. In an $8.2 million settlement 

announced in FY2017 and approved by the court in early FY2018, the United States, the State of

Minnesota, and the State of Wisconsin resolved their claims for NRD against three companies

that the governments alleged were responsible for discharges of polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) at the 255-acre “St. Louis River / Interlake / Duluth Tar” Superfund Site

near Duluth, Minnesota. PAHs were identified in river sediments throughout the site at 

concentrations high enough to injure many types of natural resources, including vegetation,

fish, and birds. Under the settlement in United States v. XIK, LLC (D. Minn.), $6.5 million will be 

spent on restoration activities. The three companies previously paid approximately $80 million

to clean up the Superfund site under agreements with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

26
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protecting Environmental Obligations During Bankruptcy Proceedings 

The Division also takes actions in bankruptcy cases to protect environmental obligations owed

to the United States when a responsible party goes into bankruptcy. During FY2017, the 

Division obtained 11 agreements or other resolutions in bankruptcy proceedings under which

debtors or parties in interest in bankruptcy cases were obligated to pay over $46.8 million. In

addition, debtors paid over $2.2 million during FY2017 under bankruptcy agreements

concluded by the Division in prior fiscal years. Of the total approximately $49 million in

obligations imposed, $40.1 million reimbursed the Superfund, over $4 million was for the

cleanup of hazardous waste sites, and $4.6 million was for natural resource damages. 

In the largest bankruptcy matter of the year, In re: Peabody Energy Corp. (Bankr. E.D. Mo.), the

Bankruptcy Court approved a September 2017 settlement resolving 35 proofs of claim of the 

United States, five states, and seven Native American tribes against two debtor mining

companies at multiple Superfund sites in Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, 

Arizona, and Washington. Under the settlement, approximately $43 million will be made 

available, with funds allocated to the sites with the most urgent need for cleanup. The 

settlement is a favorable outcome that maximizes the recovery for environmental liabilities. 

The settlement agreement allocates the payments among special accounts established for each

site.

Protecting Wildlife through Enforcement 

Federal criminal enforcement of wildlife protection statutes is a critical factor in deterring the 

illegal killing and commercialization of wildlife, fish, and plants, and augments the wildlife 

protection efforts of states, tribes, and foreign governments. Criminal prosecutions for these 

violations focus on both individual and corporate perpetrators, and result in fines, 

imprisonment, community service, and restitution to help mitigate the harm caused by the

violations, as well as forfeiture of the illicit profits and instrumentalities used to commit the

crimes.

The American eel is in high demand due to the decline of global eel stocks, causing their value

to surge to as much as $2,500 per pound. Eels will not reproduce in captivity and must be 

caught in the wild. Therefore, the current commercial demand centers on the eel in its juvenile 

stage, known as a “glass eel” or “elver,” when it is more amenable to cultivation in aquaculture

facilities. Elvers illegally harvested in the United States are often shipped to Asia, where they 

are raised to adulthood in ponds, processed for meat, and sold internationally. This illegal trade 

undercuts lawful fisheries businesses and harms our nation’s fish stocks. During FY2017, as part 

of a multi-district undertaking known as Operation Broken Glass, the Division successfully 

prosecuted 19 individuals in Maine, New Jersey, and Virginia for poaching American eels. 

Combined, these defendants illegally trafficked 4,826 pounds of elvers – approximately 9.7

million individual eels – worth more than $7 million dollars. Sentences for these defendants

include up to two years’ incarceration.

27
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operation Crash, an ongoing nationwide effort led by FWS and ENRD in conjunction with U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices to investigate and prosecute those involved in the black market trade of

rhinoceros horns and other protected species, continues to produce numerous successful

prosecutions. (A “crash” is a herd of rhinoceros). At the end of FY2017, 50 individuals and

companies had been charged as part of Operation Crash. The sentences imposed totaled more

than 36 years’ incarceration, over $2.1 million in fines, and forfeiture and restitution in the 

amount of $5.7 million. All rhinoceros species are protected under United States and

international law, and the black rhinoceros is listed as endangered under the ESA. 

In United States v. Fengyi Zhou (E.D. N.Y.), Fengyi Zhou, the owner of a New York business that 

specialized in Asian works of art, purchased five uncarved rhinoceros horns from another Asian

art dealer in New York. Along with the horns, Zhou was given an “Endangered Species Bill of

Sale,” which informed him that four of the horns were purchased in Texas and unlawfully 

transported to New York. Zhou sold the horns to an associate in China for more than $130,000. 

In November 2016, Zhou pleaded guilty to illegally trafficking in horns from black rhinoceros in

violation of the Lacey Act. On September 18, 2017, Zhou was sentenced to 24 months’ 

incarceration, followed by three years’ supervised release, and to pay a $5,000 fine and

$112,133 in restitution. 

In United States v. Michael Hegarty (S.D. Fla.), Irish national Michael Hegarty fraudulently

facilitated the transportation and concealment of a rhinoceros horn libation cup. In April 2012, 

Hegarty and co-conspirators purchased a libation cup made from the horn of an endangered

rhino at an auction in North Carolina. The cup was later smuggled out of the United States and

one of Hegarty’s co-conspirators was arrested in London while attempting to sell it to a Hong

Kong native. In January 2017, Hegarty was arrested in Belgium pursuant to an INTERPOL Red

Notice and extradited to the United States, where he pleaded guilty to a smuggling charge 

based on the transportation and concealment of the cup. Hegarty was sentenced to 18 months’ 

incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. His co-conspirator was convicted

on unrelated charges in England, is currently incarcerated there, and will face wildlife trafficking

charges in Florida. 

From time to time the Division also handles cases involving the smuggling of narwhal tusks. In

U.S. v. Gregory Logan (D. Me.), a retired member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

smuggled approximately 250 narwhal tusks, made of ivory and worth more than $2 million, 

from Canada into the United States, over the course of a decade. To do this, he custom-fit his

vehicle with false compartments to conceal the tusks, which he had purchased from tribal

cooperatives in Northern Canada. Once he smuggled the tusks into the United States, Logan

used a shipping store in Maine both to send them to his American buyers and to receive 

payments from those buyers. He also established an account at a bank in Bangor, Maine, into

which payments were wired directly by customers. Logan transported the funds he obtained

through his smuggling operation to Canada by forwarding the checks he received at the 

shipping store and by withdrawing funds from his Maine bank account in Canada. Logan was

extradited from Canada after pleading guilty to violating Canadian wildlife laws. Thereafter, 

28
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logan pleaded guilty in the District of Maine to conspiracy to launder money and substantive 

money laundering violations. On September 20, 2017, he was sentenced to 62 months’ 

incarceration, after which he will be deported to Canada.

Working with colleagues at the DHS’s Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security

Investigations Division (HSI), ENRD also has pursued several civil forfeiture investigations of

timber that had been illegally harvested in Peru and then imported into the United States in

violation of U.S. law. These efforts yielded dividends with the seizure and forfeiture at the Port 

of Houston of multiple shipments of timber illegally harvested in the Peruvian Amazon. For

these efforts, ENRD received the Department of Homeland Security Investigation Division’s

2017 award for fraud investigations.

Protecting Animal Welfare 

ENRD has oversight of six animal welfare statutes and has continued its efforts to pursue civil

forfeiture claims of dogs seized from criminal dogfighting ventures in violation of the Animal

Welfare Act. ENRD civil attorneys have obtained the forfeiture of more than 80 dogs seized

from suspected dog fighting operations around the country, resulting in significant taxpayer

savings and more humane treatment for the dogs. In addition, 12 criminal defendants have

now been charged in dog fighting cases in North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico,

Washington, and Indiana. Recent search warrants have brought the number of pit bull-type

dogs seized through these investigations to over one hundred. Six of these defendants have

been convicted, with proceedings ongoing for the others. Division attorneys also presented at 

two law enforcement animal fighting trainings, one in Valdosta, Georgia, and one in Raleigh,

North Carolina.

Protecting Worker Health and Safety 

The Division is responsible for enforcing provisions in the environmental laws that address

worker safety, as well as laws and regulations administered by the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA), which aim to protect health and safety in the workplace. 

In United States v. Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations (E.D. La.), the company was sentenced

on eight felony violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and one misdemeanor count 

of violating the Clean Water Act for events causing an explosion on an offshore oil production

platform in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in the deaths of three workers and injuries to

several others. In a related case, United States v. Wood Group PSN (E.D. La.), Wood Group, 

which also conducted operations on the platform, was ordered to pay $7 million for falsely 

reporting over several years that personnel had performed safety inspections on the offshore

facilities. 

In United States v. DNRB, Inc. (W.D. Mo.), the company was found guilty of violating an OSHA

regulation and causing the death of an ironworker. OSHA regulations require workers engaged

in certain steel erection activities to be protected from fall hazards by safety systems such as

29
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

guardrails or safety nets. No fall protection equipment had been provided by the company. The

company was sentenced to pay a fine of $500,000, the maximum penalty for the offense. 

Enforcing Federal Criminal Laws Internationally 

In addition to criminal prosecutions in the U.S. federal courts, ENRD also implements a robust 

program of international activities that advances the goals of President Trump’s Executive 

Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and

Preventing International Trafficking. First, and most importantly, the Division successfully 

prosecutes cases involving wildlife trafficking and other transnational environmental crimes in

order to thwart criminal organizations and persons engaged in illicit activities that present a

threat to public safety and national security. Division attorneys also provide critical training for 

law enforcement partners in other countries to better enable them to work effectively with us

in investigating and prosecuting transnational environmental crimes.

Attorneys from the Division further participate in negotiation and implementation of trade

agreements and international environmental agreements, to ensure they promote effective 

environmental enforcement. For example, the Division has supported the Administration’s

work to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement and incorporate provisions

addressing illegal trafficking in wildlife, fish and timber.

Division attorneys also provide leadership in international law enforcement organizations. For 

example, we work with groups such as INTERPOL that promote international efforts to combat

transnational criminal organizations. ENRD also represents the Department on the Presidential

Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, which the Department co-chairs along with the Departments

of State and the Interior. This year, we worked closely with the other federal agencies on the 

Task Force to implement the requirements of the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt (or END) 

Wildlife Trafficking Act and develop new reports to Congress that analyze global challenges to

combatting wildlife trafficking and provide a new, country-specific focus to our ongoing efforts. 

Through the Division’s capacity-building efforts, Division attorneys work to help law

enforcement partners, particularly in countries where illegal poaching of wildlife and

deforestation occur, to strengthen their evidence-gathering abilities and improve their judicial

and prosecutorial effectiveness. These training programs also foster positive relationships with

prosecutorial counterparts, thereby increasing the Division’s ability to prosecute U.S. criminal

laws such as the Lacey Act and Endangered Species Act.

In the last fiscal year Division attorneys provided training on combatting wildlife trafficking and

associated financial crimes, for prosecutors, magistrates, and judges – often at the request of

the State Department -- in countries across the globe including countries in West and Central

Africa, Nepal, Indonesia, and Cambodia. Many of these courses were done in conjunction with

the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

We also provided similar training assistance focused on illegal logging crimes for partners in

Africa and Central and South America, including training programs for magistrates, prosecutors, 

30
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and investigative officials from Gabon and four other Congo Basin countries, as well as

prosecutors and investigators in Puerto Maldonado in the Peruvian Amazon and for Central

American prosecutors at the State Department’s International Law Enforcement Academy in El

Salvador.

Prosecutors from the Division are now leading pollution enforcement workshops at the 

International Law Enforcement Academies in El Salvador and Bangkok. ENRD also hosted

prosecutors from Colombia visiting Washington, D.C., providing them with training regarding

the enforcement of pollution and natural resource laws through on-site sessions as well as

follow-up webinars for approximately 80 prosecutors and in-house investigators.

Supporting Crime Victims 

ENRD is committed not just to bringing perpetrators of crime to justice, but also to ensuring

victims of crime are treated with dignity and respect, pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act

and other victims’ rights laws. ENRD, in partnership with the EPA, has developed the nation’s

first federal Environmental Crime Victim Assistance Program to ensure that victims of

environmental crimes are supported from the opening of an investigation through final

adjudication. Funding for this program is provided by the Crime Victims Fund, which is financed

by fines and penalties paid by convicted federal offenders, not from taxpayer dollars.

31
Supporting Infrastructure Development 

and Energy Security and Independence

Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Wikipedia

32
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting Infrastructure Development and Energy Security and Independence 

ENRD’s work supports our nation’s investment in infrastructure development and energy 

security. In the spring of 2017 the President first announced his plans for an Infrastructure

Initiative, the details of which were recently released. The Division worked closely with an

interagency group to develop this Initiative, which is focused on rebuilding and modernizing the

nation’s infrastructure. Rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure is a critical part of the President’s

agenda to promote job creation and grow the U.S. economy.

ENRD has also assisted client agencies as they advance the goals of the January 24, 2017

Executive Order on Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority

Infrastructure Projects and the March 28, 2017 Executive Order on Promoting Energy 

Independence and Economic Growth. As discussed below, through our litigation and counseling

support we have helped various federal agencies expeditiously proceed with critical projects

related to these Executive Orders.

Defending Permits for Oil Pipelines 

In Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D.D.C), the Division aided in the

successful implementation of the January 24, 2017 Presidential Memorandum Regarding

Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. A number of plaintiffs brought extensive litigation

aimed at shutting down the Dakota Access Pipeline; ENRD was ultimately successful in largely 

defeating motions for summary judgment and other efforts to vacate the Army Corps’ decisions

that authorized pipeline construction. The pipeline has been operational since June 2017.

ENRD also continues to defend against challenges to the approval of the Presidential Permit for 

the Keystone XL Pipeline, issued after the President’s January 2017 Memorandum inviting

TransCanada to reapply for the Permit.

Supporting Water Supply Management 

In Manitoba v. Salazar and State of Missouri v. Department of the Interior (D.D.C.), the Division

prevailed on NEPA challenges brought by the Government of the Province of Manitoba and the 

State of Missouri to the Northwest Area Water Supply project, a Bureau of Reclamation water

supply project in North Dakota, which will transfer water from a reservoir on the Missouri River

to areas of North Dakota within the Hudson Bay basin. The court upheld the NEPA analysis in a

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and also dismissed the state’s claims for 

lack of standing. The court noted that Missouri expressly asserted standing as parens patriae on

behalf of its residents, but held that such an assertion was not permissible for claims asserted

against the United States, as the superior “parent of country.”

33
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defending Resource Extraction Decisions on Federal Land 

ENRD continues to defend the Department of the Interior’s coal program in numerous cases

involving challenges to the BLM’s issuance of coal leases and the Office of Surface Mining’s

(OSM’s) approval of mining plans. Most recently, in High Country Conservation Advocates v. 

Bureau of Land Management (D. Colo.), the Division successfully defended against a motion to

temporarily restrain exploration drilling pertaining to the West Elk Mine in Colorado, following

the BLM’s issuance of coal lease modifications and its approval of an exploration plan. The

Division also successfully defended OSM’s approval of mining plans pertaining to the El

Segundo Mine in New Mexico, in WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell (D.N.M.). 

Promoting Nuclear Energy 

In Beyond Nuclear v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.), the Division prevailed in litigation brought by

environmental and anti-nuclear plaintiffs groups that challenged a plan to transport certain

highly enriched nuclear material in liquid form by truck from Ontario, Canada, to the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Savannah River facility in South Carolina. The groups had

alleged violations of NEPA, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Department of Energy Organization

Act of 1977.

34
Strengthening National Security

U.S. Fighter F-18, United States Air Force

35
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strengthening National Security 

ENRD’s work advances the missions of the DOD and DHS to keep our nation safe, secure, and

resilient. Our work defends DOD’s environmental compliance efforts in their siting of military

operations. Our work further assists DHS and other agencies as they implement the January 25, 

2017 Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.

Supporting Military Operations 

In Zbitnoff v. James (2nd Cir.), ENRD successfully argued that the court should reject the 

plaintiffs’ NEPA challenges to the Air Force’s decision to base a squadron of F-35 aircraft at 

Burlington International Airport in Vermont. The court of appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ 

contention that NEPA requires a broad assessment of economic costs and benefits apart from 

any connection with the project’s environmental effects. The court also held that the EIS was

not required to address state or local noise controls because they were preempted by federal

law, although the court noted that the EIS did address increased noise and effects on housing in

any event. 

In United States v. 1.647 Acres of Land, More or Less, Located in San Diego County, State of 

California, et al. (S.D. Cal.), the Division successfully settled a time sensitive matter on behalf of

the U.S. Navy to allow for the construction of the Navy’s Broadway Complex Redevelopment 

Project in San Diego, California. The litigation was viewed as potentially delaying construction of

the project which is valued at $1.3 billion. The project will result in a new regional headquarters

at no cost to taxpayers in exchange for granting use of the remainder of the site to a developer

for commercial development.

ENRD has also filed a number of cases in the Central District of California on behalf of the U.S.

Navy to allow for the expansion of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center located in

Twentynine Palms, California. These acquisitions will enable Marine Expeditionary Brigade

training for three battalions using air and ground live fire. The Division successfully negotiated a

settlement in one of the larger cases in late November shortly before trial. The settlement was

reached after extensive discovery and motions practice on terms that reflect fair and just 

compensation for the land and will likely serve as a measurement for potential resolution of the

remaining cases as well as the numerous other cases the Division anticipates it will file in 2018

in support of this project.

Increasing Security along the Southern Border 

ENRD has worked closely with DHS, CBP, as it addresses NEPA, ESA, waiver, and other issues

related to southern border fence construction and enforcement efforts, including the 

expeditious construction of border barriers and roads. 

In early 2017, ENRD successfully settled four land acquisition cases on behalf of CBP in the

District of Arizona. The land was acquired for the installation and operation of surveillance 

towers, access roads, and associated structures to secure the United States/Mexico border.

36
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENRD also favorably settled a large group of land acquisition cases in Texas on behalf of CBP in

connection with the El Paso Water Improvement District. The acquisitions secured access rights

for the United States and allowed it to build crossings over the District’s canals for border

security purposes. Settlement with the District was for the amounts initially proposed by the

United States (only $7,000) after extensive title work and subsequent litigation demonstrated

the land was owned by the United States and that the District enjoyed a mere easement over 

the land for its water works. The District had argued it was the sole owner of this land and was

owed compensation in the millions of dollars. This result is significant as a matter of precedent 

for the United States due to the anticipated need for future land condemnations to ensure

implementation of the 2017 Border Security Improvements.

37
Defending Federal Programs 

and Supporting the Administration's 

Regulatory Reform Agenda 

The Continental Divide Wilderness Study Area, New Mexico, Bureau of Land Management

38
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defending Federal Programs and Supporting the Administration’s Regulatory Reform Agenda 

ENRD also defends the United States in litigation challenging agency actions involving the public

lands, wildlife and marine resources, and pollution control, among others. Our defense of these 

cases and our legal counsel allow our client agencies to accomplish their missions efficiently 

and effectively. ENRD also supports the Administration’s prerogative to set its own policy 

agenda by vigorously defending the federal agencies’ decisions with respect to policy 

prioritization and assisting those agencies as they work to implement the President’s regulatory

reform agenda.

Defending Agency Decisions to Restore Natural Resources 

In Gulf Restoration Network v. Zinke (D. Ala.), the plaintiff challenged the allocation of funds

obtained from BP for the restoration of natural resources following the Deepwater Horizon oil

spill in 2010. The plaintiff had successfully challenged the decision of four federal agencies and

the State of Alabama to use a portion of those funds for the construction of a lodge and various

public access amenities at the Gulf State Park in Alabama. Following that adverse decision, 

ENRD worked closely with the federal agencies to prepare a new decision based on a more

robust NEPA analysis, and later defended that new decision in a second lawsuit. The parties

ultimately settled the litigation on favorable terms that leave the challenged decision intact, 

thus allowing the project to move forward without further delay.

Defending Against Challenges to Indian Land Management Decisions 

The Division continued to have considerable success in defending decisions by DOI to take land

into trust for the benefit of tribes under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), following the

Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar. In Carcieri, the Supreme Court held that the 

Secretary’s authority to acquire land in trust was limited to those tribes that were “under 

Federal jurisdiction” in 1934. This year the Division continued to adhere to the Carcieri 

precedent and prevailed in its defense of six trust acquisitions by DOI, affecting multiple tribes. 

In Western Refining Southwest, Inc. v. DOI (D.N.M.), ENRD is defending two DOI decisions to

deny a request to renew a right-of-way across Indian lands on the basis that the requestor 

failed to obtain sufficient landowner consent. We successfully opposed a motion to dismiss the 

case on the basis that the Navajo Nation is a necessary and indispensable party to the suit.

ENRD also successfully defended DOI’s acceptance of Washington’s partial retrocession of civil

and criminal jurisdiction over the Yakima Reservation in Klickitat County v. Interior (E.D. Wash.).

Facilitating Responsible Ocean Fisheries Management 

ENRD successfully defended various fishery management actions necessary to meet the 

objectives of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and

other related statutes that charge the NMFS with managing ocean commercial fishing to

provide for sustainable fishing while, at the same time, optimizing fishing yield. Of particular

39
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

note was ENRD’s victory in Alfa International Seafood Inc. v. Ross (D.D.C.), involving a challenge 

to NMFS’s seafood traceability rule. The rule establishes import requirements for certain stocks

of fish to prevent seafood fraud and fish from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing from 

entering the U.S. seafood market. In a case of first impression, ENRD attorneys successfully 

turned back constitutional and statutory challenges to the rule, thereby leveling the playing

field for the U.S. fishing industry.

ENRD also successfully defeated a challenge to NMFS’s final rule implementing the 

Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment in Oceana v. Ross (D.D.C.).

This significant decision upheld NMFS’s balanced approach to at-sea monitoring as applied to

multiple significant fisheries along the Atlantic coast.

Protecting Wildlife Habitat 

ENRD has helped facilitate the development of new Greater Sage-Grouse Management plans by 

the BLM and the Forest Service. The plans are intended to assist with the conservation of the

habitat for this bird species. We have negotiated stays in the 11 cases where plaintiffs ranging

from industry groups to environmental interests challenged the Sage-Grouse plans

implemented by the prior administration, and we are providing legal advice to the agencies as

they amend the plans. 

Defending Clean Water and Clean Air Permitting Decisions 

In litigation proceeding to the merits in Tin Cup v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D.

Alaska), the Division won a favorable ruling on a challenge to a CWA permit issued by the Corps

of Engineers, where the plaintiff alleged that permafrost on the plaintiff’s site in North Pole, 

Alaska, was not a wetland because it does not meet the hydrology parameter of the Corps’ 

1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual. On September 26, 2017, the district court issued a

favorable opinion, granting our motion for summary judgment, and rejecting plaintiff’s

argument that language in 1992 and 1993 appropriations acts barred the Corps from relying on

its Alaska Supplement to the 1987 Manual.

The Division also won a favorable ruling in In re Sierra Club (1st Cir.), on a petition for writ of

mandamus alleging that EPA had unreasonably delayed issuing revised CWA permits for two

coal-fired power plants, the Schiller Station in New Hampshire, and the Mt. Tom Station in

Massachusetts. In a judgment issued on April 19, 2017, the court of appeals ruled that 

mandamus was not warranted because EPA had issued draft permits and had adequately 

explained the reason for the time it was taking to finalize those permits. Therefore, the court 

ruled Sierra Club had not met its burden of showing that the court should step in to reprioritize 

the EPA's work.

ENRD also prevailed on multiple challenges to EPA’s Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the

CAA regional haze requirements in Arizona and on the Navajo reservation. On March 20, 2017, 

the Ninth Circuit issued decisions in Hopi Tribe v. EPA (9th Cir.) and Yazzie v. EPA (9th Cir.), 

upholding the FIP setting emission limits for the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired power 

plant on the Navajo reservation. And on April 3, 2017, the court issued a decision in Arizona v. 

40
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA (9th Cir.), rejecting state and industry petitions for review of portions of EPA's regional

haze FIP for Arizona, including EPA’s “reasonable progress” FIP for the state and a Best 

Available Retrofit Technology plan for two copper smelters.

In Sierra Club v. Pruitt (D.D.C.), an environmental group sought to compel EPA to respond to

petitions seeking objections to CAA Title V permits issued to two coal-fired plants operated by 

Duke Energy Progress in North Carolina. While EPA conceded that it had failed to meet the

statutory deadline, the parties disagreed on a reasonable time for EPA to take action, and thus

filed cross-motions for summary judgment on remedy. On March 2, 2017, the court granted

EPA’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the declaration submitted with EPA’s

summary judgment brief supported EPA’s proposed deadline and demonstrated that the

plaintiff’s proposed deadline was unattainable.

The Division obtained a favorable ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Cir.), dismissing for lack of

jurisdiction a petition for review of an EPA guidance document under the CAA addressing

particulate matter “hotspot” issues for transportation conformity determinations. On October

24, 2017, the court issued a decision finding first that petitioners had not articulated an

adequate basis for standing to challenge the fine particulate matter aspects of the guidance. 

Second, while the court noted that the standing question was a closer call as to the coarse 

particulate matter part of the guidance, the court found that portion also unreviewable for lack

of “final” action. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition in its entirety for lack of

jurisdiction.

Defending Federal and Tribal Interests in Water 

The Division also defends the federal water rights of tribes, which the United States holds in

trust. The preferred approach is to resolve these matters through complex, multi-party

settlements involving tribes, states, water users, and the United States. These settlements bring

neighbors together in an effort to share a critical common resource. In fall 2017, Secretary 

Zinke signed an historic settlement between the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, 

southern California water districts, and the United States. This settlement brings to a close over 

50 years of litigation in United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District (S.D. Cal.), confirming the 

Tribe’s water rights and providing a strong foundation for the Tribe and the water districts to

engage in water management and planning for future needs.

Defending Agency Findings on Pesticides 

On July 18, 2017, the court of appeals issued a decision rejecting a mandamus petition in In re 

Pesticide Action Network North America (9th Cir.). Petitioners originally filed an administrative 

petition with EPA in 2007 seeking to revoke all food tolerances and cancel all registration of the 

pesticide chlorpyrifos. In 2014, EPA had not acted on the petition, so the petitioners sought 

mandamus relief in the Ninth Circuit to force EPA to respond. In August 2015, the court ordered

EPA to issue either a proposed or final revocation or a full and final response to the petition. On

March 29, 2017, EPA denied the petition. The petitioners sought further mandamus relief in the 

Ninth Circuit, arguing that EPA’s denial was inadequate. The court rejected that argument,

finding (as we had argued) that the mandamus case only controls the timing, not the substance, 

41
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of EPA’s action, and that EPA unquestionably took final action here. The court also noted that

EPA has an administrative objections process that is a prerequisite to substantive judicial review

of the petition denial.

Defending Federal Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Activity 

ENRD vigorously defends against litigation that would interfere with federally selected actions

to clean up contaminated sites. In two related cases, Giovanni v. United States (E.D. Pa.) and

Palmer v. United States (E.D. Pa.), individuals living near Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, 

Willow Grove, and the Naval Air Warfare Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania, sued the United

States in state court, alleging that toxic chemicals from the federal facilities have polluted public

and private drinking wells from which they obtain their drinking water. In fact, the facilities are

on the National Priorities List, and a federal response action is ongoing. We removed the case 

to federal court and moved to dismiss. In July and August 2017, the court issued orders granting

our motions to dismiss both cases, finding that the plaintiffs’ suits presented a challenge to

remedial action that is barred by Section 113(h) of the CERCLA.

Defending Important Principles of Administrative Law 

In Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. Administrator of EPA (N.D. W. Va.; 4th Cir.), a group of coal

companies claimed that EPA was not complying with a continuous duty under the CAA to

evaluate the potential employment impacts – particularly on the coal mining industry – of

administration and enforcement of the Act, and sought to compel performance of particular 

studies before EPA could issue new regulations, which could have resulted in the diversion of

significant agency resources to this task. After several years of litigation in district court, 

including burdensome discovery and an adverse district court decision, the Division obtained a

favorable ruling on appeal on June 29, 2017, holding that the relevant provision of the Act “fails

to offer such clear instructions that could serve as a solid basis for judicial review,” and

therefore ordering the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied

certiorari on January 8, 2018.

In Gulf Restoration Network v. EPA (E.D. La.), an environmental group challenged EPA’s denial

of a rulemaking petition that asked EPA to establish numeric nutrient criteria for waters in at 

least ten states and as many as all 50 states – a task that also would have required an

overwhelming commitment of agency resources. EPA denied the petition, explaining that it

intended to continue its efforts working with states to develop their own criteria. On December

15, 2016, the district court entered summary judgment for EPA, holding that EPA’s reasoning

was adequately grounded in the statute. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that EPA

had improperly substituted policy concerns for scientific and technical analysis, explaining that

the relevant provision of the CWA “draws upon the entire body of the [Act], which itself is a

broadly worded statutory scheme,” and one that by design gives primacy to states. A denial of

the petition based on a conclusion that continuing to partner with states was a more effective 

approach than developing federal criteria was therefore “not based on reasons divorced from

the statutory text of the CWA.”

42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting Regulatory Review Efforts 

To assist our client agencies in implementing the January 30, 2017 Executive Order on Reducing

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, ENRD worked with EPA, DOI, and other agencies

to facilitate the effective review of regulations that are at issue in pending cases. In numerous

cases – including such high-profile matters as challenges to the Clean Power Plan, the 2015

revised ozone NAAQS, BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule, BLM’s waste prevention rule, and the 

land use management plans of BLM and the Forest Service – ENRD has secured continuances

and abeyances of litigation to allow the Administration time to review existing regulations

subject to ongoing litigation. ENRD has further prepared numerous filings for the D.C. Circuit to

assure continued abeyance of litigation, including immediately apprising the court of significant 

administrative developments. 

Attorney General Sessions also has directed DOJ to “develop a centralized understanding of the

extent, nature, and impact of the Department’s regulatory activity.” As a result, ENRD is

undertaking a comprehensive internal review of its operations. To that end the Department has

sought comment on various “actions” undertaken by Department components. ENRD has

reviewed a wide range of Division guidance documents, directives, regulations, memoranda

and other documents to determine whether they impose any binding requirements on any 

person or entity outside the federal government.

ENRD in the Supreme Court 

Although the Division did not have any cases in the Supreme Court in which the United States

was a party during the fiscal year, we did file amicus briefs in two cases that fell within ENRD’s

purview. The first, Lewis v. Clarke, involved the issue of whether a tribal employee could be

sued in his individual capacity in state court for a tort committed during the scope of his

employment. The employee, who was a chauffeur at a tribally-owned casino, was responsible 

for a car accident which injured the state-court plaintiffs when he was driving casino patrons

home. The Connecticut Supreme Court had held that the employee could invoke the tribe’s

sovereign immunity even though he had only been sued in his individual capacity and the 

accident had occurred off-reservation. We filed an amicus brief explaining the differences

between individual capacity and official capacity suits, and the history behind federal, state, 

and foreign sovereign immunity doctrines. The Supreme Court, following the lead in our brief,

held that a tribal employee sued in his individual capacity because of an off-reservation tort 

could not invoke the tribe’s immunity.

The second case in which we filed an amicus, Murr v. Wisconsin, involved a Fifth Amendment 

takings claim. Plaintiffs owned in common two adjacent riverfront recreational lots. Pursuant to

state laws for the protection of scenic rivers, the local county had adopted a regulation

prohibiting the sale of any adjacent lot in common ownership that had less than one acre of

developable property. The landowners sued, alleging this amounted to a regulatory taking of

the one undersized lot. At issue was whether the taking claim should be judged taking into

account only the one undersized lot or both of the adjacent lots as they were in common

ownership. Our amicus brief set out a test for consideration which the Supreme Court largely 

43
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

followed in concluding that the taking claim should be assessed against the value of both lots, 

not just the single undersized lot.

The Division also prepared briefs in opposition to petitions for certiorari filed in 23 Division

cases. The petitions were denied in all of those cases, including two petitions that challenged

DOI decisions to take land into trust for the Oneida Indian Nation of New York and the Cowlitz

Tribe in Washington State, and one petition asserting that states and counties had the right to

go onto Forest Service land over the Forest Service’s objection, to remove trees or other

vegetation in order to protect themselves from wildfires.

44
Focusing on Our Internal Operations

Earth Day, Department of Justice

45
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focusing on Our Internal Operations 

While we assist our client agencies in their actions to advance the President’s policy agenda, 

the President, through the March 13, 2017 “Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for 

Reorganizing the Executive Branch,” has directed us to look internally and review our own

operations to examine how we can identify activities that could be improved, realigned, or 

eliminated in order to save money, gain efficiencies, and better serve the American people.

Making Efficient Use of Our Resources 

By memorandum dated April 4, 2017, the Attorney General asked components to conduct their 

own internal reviews to identify opportunities to make the best use of the Department’s limited

resources in alignment with Department priorities to strengthen national security protections

and counter-terrorism efforts, among other objectives. As detailed in its April 12, 2017

memorandum, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) further envisioned that these 

proposals would eliminate activities, restructure or merge operations, or improve

organizational efficiency and increase effectiveness. In response to the President’s Executive 

Order and the memoranda from the Attorney General and OMB, ENRD is undertaking a

comprehensive internal review of its operations. 

Updating the U.S. Attorney’s Manual

The Office of the Deputy Attorney General has asked all DOJ components, including ENRD, to

review and revise sections of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (USAM) relevant to the Division. ENRD

has proposed revisions that would delete outdated material or processes and correct erroneous

or unnecessary references, better reflecting current day-to-day practices (especially vis-à-vis

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices), and simplify text when possible. These revisions will make our work

with the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices more effective and efficient.

Training Our Staff 

The Division provides training to its staff tailored to need. In 2017, there were 57 unique 

courses sponsored by ENRD with 1,960 attendees at these courses. Trainings included skills

courses, professional responsibility courses, managerial courses, and courses on e-discovery.

This fiscal year also marked the third consecutive ENRD Academy event series, which offers a

wide range of professional development opportunities for Division personnel. These courses

are internally developed and delivered by Division experts on a variety of topics. The Division

also continued its ten-day training program for new honor grad attorneys in September which

provides CLE credit and practical advice and guidance on many topics.

Promoting Diversity 

The Division’s Diversity Committee sponsored trainings and events on topics of workforce 

diversity, employee engagement, and recognizing unconscious bias for all ENRD staff. Topics

ranged from caring for elderly relatives to addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Additionally, the committee recommended best practices for the trial attorney hiring process to 

46
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

enhance effectiveness, transparency, fairness, and consistency. These practices were codified

into a memorandum and distributed to all ENRD staff. The Division also continues to be an

active participant in the Department’s Diversity Inclusion and Dialogue Program, which

facilitates a deeper understanding of diversity and inclusion issues among DOJ employees.

Further, the Division continued its efforts to achieve geographic diversity in the hiring process

through the successful ENRD Ambassadors Program. The Program facilitates relationships

between Division attorneys and faculty at 189 law schools across the country.

47
Snapshots from Fiscal Year 2017 

Award Ceremonies 

Department of Justice 

Josh Van Eaton of the Environmental Enforcement Section Presidential Rank Award presented to Karen Wardzinski, Chief 

awarded Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal, Partnership of the Law and Policy Section, ConnellyWorks, Inc.

for Public Service

ENRD's Muskie-Chafee Award presented to Jon M. Lipshultz, Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service presented to Brian M. 

Assistant Chief in the Environmental Defense Section, Department of Holly, Chief Appraiser, and Georgia Garthwaite, Acting Division Counsel for 

Justice Title Matters in the Land Acquisition Section, Department of Justice 

48
Snapshots from Fiscal Year 2017 

Award Ceremonies

John Marshall Award presented to Joseph Warren and Steve 

Willey, Senior Counsel in the Environmental Enforcement Section, 

Department of Justice

Mary E. Hollingsworth, Trial Attorney in the Wildlife and Marine 

Resources Section, awarded the John Marshall Award for Asset 

Forfeiture, Department of Justice

Attorney General's Award for Excellence in Legal Support presented to 

Tawana S. McCoy-Smith, Legal Administrative Specialist in the 

Environmental Defense Section, Department of Justice

Attorney General's Award for Excellence in Administrative 

Support presented to Gail P. Robinson, Legal Administrative 

Specialist in the Indian Resources Section, Department of Justice

49