Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110409818/Complaint-Leeco-Lotts-Creek-Permit
Timestamp: 2015-10-04 13:54:48
Document Index: 338713148

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1344', '§ 4321', '§ 500', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

Complaint Leeco Lotts Creek Permit
P. 1Complaint Leeco Lotts Creek PermitComplaint Leeco Lotts Creek PermitRatings: (0)|Views: 85|Likes: 0Published by petersoe0More info:Published by: petersoe0 on Oct 18, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/110409818/Complaint-Leeco-Lotts-Creek-Permit10/18/2012pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENUTKCYLOUISVILLE DIVISION
KENTUCKIANS FOR THE )COMMENWEALTH, and SIERRA )CLUB, )))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Civil Action No. __________)UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF )ENGINEERS, THOMAS P. BOSTICK, )Commander and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army )Corps of Engineers, and Luke T. Leonard )Colonel, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of )Engineers, Louisville District, ))Defendants. )
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEFINTRODUCTION
This Complaint challenges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“the Corps’”)failure to comply with the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq., the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and the AdministrativeProcedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., relating to the issuance of a permit for a largesurface mine in Knott and Perry counties in Kentucky. Plaintiffs challenge the Corps’ July 2012decision to issue a § 404 permit (hereinafter the “Stacy Branch Permit”) to Leeco Inc. (“Leeco”)to place fill material in 18,268 linear feet (over 3 miles) of streams in Stacy Branch andtributaries of Yellow Creek of Carr Creek near the community of Vicco in conjunction with themine-through of streams and the construction of a large valley fill.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to (1) declare that the Corps has violated the APA, theCWA and NEPA by issuing the § 404 permit to Leeco, (2) vacate the permit, (3) enjoin theCorps from authorizing any further mining through streams, or construction of valley fills orsediment ponds in connection with this permit until it complies with the CWA and NEPA, and(4) award to Plaintiffs their costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
This action arises under NEPA, the CWA and the APA. The Court has subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 2201, and 2202.4.
Venue is appropriate in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in theCorps’ Louisville Kentucky District Office.
Defendant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the federal agency charged withadministering § 404 of the CWA for discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of theUnited States. The Corps is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has a District Office inLouisville, Kentucky, where a significant portion of the events and omissions alleged in thisComplaint and giving rise to these claims occurred.
Defendant Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick is the Chief of Engineers andCommander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is charged with the supervision andmanagement of all Corps decisions and actions, including the issuance of the Corps permitsunder § 404 of the CWA.
Defendant Colonel Luke T. Leonard is the District Engineer for the LouisvilleDistrict Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Louisville, Kentucky. The Louisville
District Office is responsible for issuing permits for discharges of dredged and fill material intowaters of the United States in Kentucky under § 404 of the CWA.8.
Plaintiff Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (“KFTC”) is a statewide citizen’sorganization working to restore democratic power and a just society. KFTC works to helpKentuckians enjoy a better quality of life; to help develop communities with good jobs that donot damage Kentucky’s water, air, land, or human health; and to ensure that all Kentuckians havehealth care, shelter, food, education and other basic needs. KFTC works through direct action tochallenge – and change – unfair political, economic and social systems. KFTC works to protectthe health and wellbeing of coalfield residents in Kentucky.9.
Plaintiff Sierra Club is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in California, withmore than 600,000 members and supporters nationwide and approximately 5,000 members whoreside in Kentucky and belong to its Cumberland Chapter. The Sierra Club is dedicated toexploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of Earth; to practicing and promoting theresponsible use of Earth’s resources and ecosystems; to educating and enlisting humanity toprotect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawfulmeans to carry out those objectives. The Sierra Club’s concerns encompass the exploration,enjoyment and protection of surface waters, mountains, and wildlife in Kentucky.
Plaintiffs sue on behalf of their organizations and their members. Plaintiffs’members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, injuries to their aesthetic, recreational, andenvironmental and/or economic interests, as well as the health of themselves, their families andcommunities, by Defendants’ past and threatened future authorizations of stream filling anddisturbances related to mining activities in Kentucky pursuant to individual § 404 permits,including the Stacy Branch Permit. As has happened with past permits, the Stacy Branch Permit