Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc. v. The Bureau of Land Management et al

Filing 81

ORDER Dismissing Action and Vacating Decision in Part by Judge William J. Martinez on 02/22/2017. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 12-cv-0265-WJM
RAGS OVER THE ARKANSAS RIVER, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States,
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, an agency of the United States,
KEITH E. BERGER, in his official capacity as Field Manager for the Royal Gorge Field
Office of the Bureau of Land Management,
THOMAS HEINLEIN, in his official capacity as District Manager for the Front Range
District of the Bureau of Land Management,
RUTH WELCH, in her official capacity as Colorado State Director of the Bureau of Land
Management,* and
KEVIN “JACK” HAUGRUD, in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of the
Interior,*
Respondents,
and
OVER THE RIVER CORPORATION,
Intervenor-Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND VACATING DECISION IN PART

Pursuant to the Order (ECF No. 75) and Mandate (ECF No. 76) of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, both dated February 6, 2017, and the
Joint Status Report of the parties, dated February 21, 2017 (ECF No. 80), the Court
hereby ORDERS as follows:

1.

Given Over the River Corporation’s decision not to pursue the project at
issue, and the dismissal of the pending appeal as moot, this action is
hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this case.

2.

Only the portion of the Court’s previous Order Affirming Agency Decision,
dated January 2, 2015 (ECF No. 68), Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc.
v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (D. Colo.
2015), regarding Plaintiff's claims brought under the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”) is hereby VACATED, as directed
by the Court of Appeals. (See ECF No. 75.)

3.

The portion of the same Order regarding Plaintiff’s claims brought under
the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is not vacated, since the
Court’s decision regarding those NEPA claims was not appealed.
(See ECF Nos. 75, 80.)

4.

Each of the parties shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

* Ms. Welch and Mr. Haugrud are automatically substituted as parties, as successors to their
respective predecessors in office, previously named as parties to this action, Ms. Hankins and
Ms. Jewell. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

2