Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />jurisdicti,onal wetland determination for the Bayport Project location invalidated and re- <br /> <br /> <br />examined without such a determination being based upon this illegal rule. <br /> <br /> <br />4. Third, Plaintiffs seek to have this Court declare that overland flow of surface <br /> <br /> <br />water that connects wetlands with navigable waters is sufficient to make these wetlands <br /> <br /> <br />jurisdictional waters of the United States under ~ 404 of the Clean Water Act due to the water <br /> <br /> <br />quality nexus. <br /> <br />5. Finally, Plaintiffs seek to have this Court remand the delineation of jurisdictional <br /> <br />wetlands back to the Corps for further evaluation in light of new topographic information and in <br /> <br />light of the comments filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") arguing <br /> <br />that the extent of jurisdictional wetlands at the site was greater than identified by the U.S. Army <br /> <br /> <br />Corps of Engineers. <br /> <br />II. JURISDICTION <br /> <br />6. This action arises under the National Environme~tal Policy Act ("NEP A") of <br />1~69 as amended, 42 U.S.C. ~ 4321 et. seq., and the implementing regulations of said act. <br />Plaintiffs seek judicial review pursuant to the NEP A and the Administrative Procedure Act <br />("APA"), 5 V.S.C. ~ 701-706, as well as the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. ~ 220 I (a) and <br />~ 2202. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 V.S.C. ~ 1331 (federal question <br />jurisdiction). <br /> <br />ill. VENUE <br />7. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.~ 1391 (b) and (e) because the Galveston <br />District and portions of the Bayport Project are located in this district. <br /> <br />3. <br />