Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 1 of 18
BRYAN W. PEASE, State Bar No. 239139
LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN W. PEASE
302 Washington St. #404
San Diego, CA 92103
Tel: (619) 723-0369
Email: bryanpease@[Link]
TODD T. CARDIFF, State Bar No. 221851
LAW OFFICE OF TODD T. CARDIFF
1901 First Avenue, Suite 219
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 546-5123
todd@[Link]
DAVID R. SIMON, State Bar No. 145197
SIMON LAW GROUP
17595 Harvard Avenue, Suite C515
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (714) 975-1728
Email: dsimon1027@[Link]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Showing Animals Respect and Kindness
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21
SHOWING ANIMALS RESPECT
AND KINDNESS,
22
Plaintiff,
23
24
25
26
27
28
v.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, SECRETARY JEH
JOHNSON, ADMIRAL PAUL
ZUKUNFT and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. '16CV1039 AJB NLS
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER REQUESTED
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
1
COMPLAINT
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
1
2
Filed 04/29/16
Page 2 of 18
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff SHOWING ANIMALS RESPECT AND KINDNESS
(SHARK) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Illinois.
5
6
7
8
9
2.
Defendant UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) is an
agency of the United States falling under the Department of Homeland Security.
3.
Defendant DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
is a cabinet department of the United States.
4.
Defendant SECRETARY JEH JOHNSON (JOHNSON) is the
10
individual in charge of DHS, reporting directly to the President, and is sued in his
11
official capacity.
12
5.
Defendant ADMIRAL PAUL ZUKUNFT (ZUKUNFT) is the
13
individual in charge of USCG, reporting directly to JOHNSON and is sued in his
14
official capacity.
15
6.
Defendants DOES 1-10 are fictitiously named individuals who are
16
responsible in some manner for the acts and/or omissions herein. Plaintiff is
17
unaware of the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, and, therefore,
18
sues these Defendants under such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
19
believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants was the
20
agent, servant and employee of each and every other Defendant acting within the
21
course and scope of his or her agency and employment and with the knowledge,
22
ratification and consent of each respective principal. Plaintiff will seek leave to
23
amend this Complaint when their true names and capacities have been ascertained.
24
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25
7.
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. The Court
26
has jurisdiction to issue declaratory and/or injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
27
2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
28
2
COMPLAINT
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
1
2
8.
Filed 04/29/16
Page 3 of 18
Venue in this Court is proper as defendants are an agency and cabinet
department of the United States government.
3
4
Document 1
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
9.
On information or belief, the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) operates a highly secretive program called Wildlife Services, which
kills native predators with traps, snares, poisons, gas, and aerial gunning at the
request of corporate agriculture. They slaughter millions of wild animals a year with
taxpayer dollars, including over 100,000 vital native predators like wolves, cougars,
coyotes and bears. The agency has refused Congressional requests for transparency
10
11
and has refused to account for their spending.
10.
In San Diego County alone, Wildlife Services has been estimated to
12
kill thousands of animals per year and has come under scrutiny by KPBS
13
([Link]
14
animals-san-die/) and Voice of San Diego ([Link]
15
investigations/san-diego-countys-wildlife-killers/).
16
11.
Plaintiff SHARK exists to document and expose animal cruelty
17
wherever it is occurring. Steve Hindi, the executive director of SHARK, is a former
18
hunter who realized at a pigeon shoot he was observing that the protesters were
19
right. Hindi and SHARK have found that exercising their First Amendment rights
20
to document and expose animal cruelty typically results in the animal cruelty being
21
stopped because the public will not tolerate it.
22
23
24
12.
In Washington State, Wildlife Services began killing cormorants to
benefit the salmon industry in April 2016.
13.
Upon learning of this latest mass slaughter of wildlife in April 2016,
25
Hindi and SHARK arrived at the Columbia River to observe the USDA boat, called
26
the Nessy, and document and expose the Wildlife Services agents killing
27
cormorants with shotguns from the boat.
28
3
COMPLAINT
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
14.
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 4 of 18
Plaintiff is operating from their boat called the Bob and Nancy,
named after Bob Barker and Nancy Burnet, who donated most of the funds to
purchase the almost $75,000 boat specifically to document and expose this mass
killing of wildlife.
5
6
7
15.
On April 18, 2016, the killing stopped because the Wildlife Services
employees did not want to be documented killing wildlife.
16.
However, on April 25, 2016, the U.S. Coastguard issued a safety
exclusion zone memo ordering all boats to stay 500 yards away from the Nessy. A
true and correct copy of the Coast Guard memo regarding the safety exclusion zone
10
11
12
13
is attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference.
17.
As soon as the safety exclusion zone was implemented, Wildlife
Services employees resumed their slaughter of cormorants using shotguns.
18.
The only purpose of the safety exclusion zone is to prevent First
14
Amendment news gathering and documenting activity. There has been absolutely
15
no safety threat posed by Plaintiff nor other activists, who have only been peacefully
16
documenting the Nessy, which had the effect of stopping the killing by shining a
17
public spotlight on it.
18
19.
The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that 500 yards is several
19
orders of magnitude beyond a reasonable distance if the goal is to prevent shotgun
20
pellets from hitting anyone. A distance of 75 yards would be more than enough for
21
such a purpose, and that would be true even if the Wildlife Services employees were
22
aiming the guns in the direction of those documenting the killing. The employees
23
are not using long range rifles to kill cormorants, but rather shotgun pellets which
24
disperse at a very short distance.
25
20.
On April 25, 2016, agents of USCG boarded Plaintiffs boat, the Bob
26
and Nancy. The agents served Plaintiff with the safety exclusion zone memo
27
attached hereto as Exhibit A and inspected the boat, finding no violations. USCG
28
agents also interrogated the people on the boat, including passengers.
4
COMPLAINT
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 5 of 18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of First Amendment
3
4
5
21.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs
of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.
22.
The sole purpose of the safety exclusion zone is to prevent First
Amendment documenting and news gathering activity. An example of one of the
videos produced by Plaintiff since arriving at the kill site on April 18, 2016 is posted
at [Link]
23.
Plaintiff has spent considerable time and money purchasing a boat and
10
making the trip to the Columbia River to document this taxpayer funded killing,
11
which the public has a right to know about.
12
24.
The exclusionary zone has made it impossible for Plaintiff to carry out
13
its mission of documenting and exposing the taxpayer funded killing, rendering the
14
money and time spent a total waste unless overturned by the Court.
15
25.
After receiving the benefit of the exclusionary zone, the contract killers
16
aboard the Nessy began chasing after the Bob and Nancy, forcing them to retreat to
17
continue to stay beyond 500 yards. After Plaintiff complained to USCG, this
18
behavior by the Nessy ceased temporarily and then resumed again. This behavior
19
by the Nessy demonstrates the true purpose of the exclusionary zone, which is to
20
thwart Plaintiff in its mission to document and expose the killing. The Wildlife
21
Services employees have turned the shield of the exclusionary zone into a sword to
22
actively harass, intimidate and bully those aboard the Bob and Nancy.
23
24
26.
Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief that the safety
exclusion zone is improper and unconstitutional.
25
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
26
All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. 1651)
27
28
27.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs
of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.
5
COMPLAINT
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
28.
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 6 of 18
The All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. 1651) provides that all federal courts
may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
29.
Ordering Defendants to set aside the safety exclusion zone order
attached hereto as Exhibit A is necessary or appropriate to protect Plaintiffs First
Amendment rights.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
False Statements to a Federal Officer
(18 U.S.C. 1001)
10
11
30.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs
of this Complaint as though each were set forth herein in full.
12
31.
On information or belief, the USCG boarding of the Bob and Nancy
13
as well as the safety exclusion zone memo was based in part on false accusations
14
made by Wildlife Services employees.
15
32.
Plaintiff at all times has only peacefully documented the Nessy in
16
accordance with its First Amendment rights. At no time did Plaintiff nor anyone
17
aboard the Bob and Nancy engage in any act directed at intimidating or interfering
18
with those aboard the Nessy.
19
20
33.
statements and for all liability that attaches thereto.
21
22
Defendants DOES 1-10 are responsible for making these false
34.
The false statements made by DOES 1-10 to federal agents constitute
felonies and carry civil liability as well for damages they have caused.
23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24
25
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
(1)
For general and special compensatory damages (including direct,
26
indirect, and emotional damages), presumed damages, and nominal
27
damages, in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact, against all
28
Defendants.
6
COMPLAINT
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
(2)
2
3
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 7 of 18
For punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants in amounts to
be determined by the trier of fact.
(3)
For declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from
enforcing the safety exclusion zone memo attached hereto as Exhibit
A,
(4)
7
8
9
For reasonable attorneys fees and costs and expenses of litigation,
against all Defendants.
(5)
For any and all other relief, including interest, to which Plaintiff may
be entitled under the law.
10
11
12
13
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to each and every cause of action against
each and every defendant.
14
15
16
Dated: April 29, 2016
By:
17
18
19
_/s/ Bryan W. Pease________
BRYAN W. PEASE
Attorney for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
20
21
I, Steve Hindi, am an officer of Plaintiff in this action. I have read the
22
foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of
23
my own knowledge, except as to those matters alleged on information or belief,
24
and, as to all of those matters, I believe them to be true.
25
26
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
27
28
Dated: April 29, 2016
By:
7
COMPLAINT
________________________
Steve Hindi
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 8 of 18
ExhibitA
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 9 of 18
9 110-04-P
DEPARTM ENT OF HOMELA ND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[ Docket Number USCG-2016-0236]
RI
I 625-AAOO
Safety Zone; Columbi a Ri ver, Sand Island . WA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Ol-IS.
ACT ION: Temporary final rule.
SUMMA RY: The Coast Guard is establi shing a temporary sa fet y zone for navigab le waters of
the Columbia Ri ver within a SOD-ya rd radius of tile small boat "Ncssy," whil e in the area of Sand
Island, ncar Chi nook, W A, and associated vessels in support o f remova l operations conducted by
the Anny Corps of Engin eers and U.S. Department of Agri culture Wildl ife Services. The safety
zone is needed to pro tect perso nnel , vessel s and the marine environ ment from potential hazards
created by the removal o perations. Entry of vessel s o r persons into this zone is prohibi ted unl ess
specificall y au thorized by the Ca pta in of the Port Sector Co lumbia River, o r a designated
representati vc.
DATES :
This rule is clTcct ive witho ut actua l no ti ce from [INSE RT DATE OF
PUBLICA TION IN THE FEDERAL REG ISTER] through June 3,2016. For the purposes of
cnforccmcnt, actual noticc wi ll bc uscd from April 25, 20 16 th rough June 3, 20 16.
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 10 of 18
ADDRESSES: To view document s mentioned in thi s preamble as being avai lable in the
dockct, go to [Link] .gov, type USCG-20 16-0236 in thc "SEARC H" box and
cli ck "SEARCH." C li ck on Open Docket Fold er on the line associated with thi s rule.
FOR FURTH ER INFORM A nON CONTACT: Ir yo u have question s on this rule, call or
emai l Mr. Kenneth Lawrenson , Watcf\v ays Management Di vision , Marine Safety Unit Portland,
U.S . Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-93 19, emai l msupdxwwm @[Link].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :
I. Table of Abbreviations
eFR
DH S
FR
NPRM
U.S.c.
Code of Federal Regulatio ns
Department of Ho meland Security
Federal Register
Not ice of proposed rulemaking
Secti on
United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatorv Historv
The Coast Guard is issuing thi s temporary rule witho ut prior notice and opportuni ty to
comm en t pursuant to authority under secti on 4(a) of the Admini strati ve Proced ure Act (A PA) (5
U.S .C.553(b. Thi s provision authorizes an agency to issue a rul e without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause find s that those procedures arc
"impracti cable, unnecessary, or contrary to the publi c interest." Under 5 U.S.c. 553(b)(8), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists fo r not publi shing a noti ce of proposed rulemaking
(N PR M) with respect to thi s ru le because to do so wou ld be impracticable sincc delayed
promulgation may result in inj ury or damage to persons and vessels in the vicinity of the affected
area from hazards associated with the remova l operations, which are being conducted usi ng
firearms and li ve ammunition.
We are iss uing Ihis rul e, and under 5 U.S.c. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard find s that good
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 11 of 18
ca use ex ists for making it effective less than 30 days after publicat ion in the Federa l Register.
Dela yi ng the effecti ve date of thi s rule would be impracti cable because such delay would
e liminate the sa fety zone 's effccti veness and use fulness in preventing dangers to the boating
public associ ated with the removal operati ons being condu cted using fireanns and live
ammu niti on.
III. Lega l Authority a nd Need fo r Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under au thority in 33 U.S .C. 123 1. The Ann y Corps
of Engineers and U.S. Department of Agri culture Wildlife Services will conduct a Federa ll y
pennitt cd remova l operation o f the Double-Crested Connoran t starting April 25,2016. Thi s
operati on will in volve the use of fireanns and li ve ammunition. The Captain of the Port Sector
Columbia Ri ver (COTP) has detennined that potential hazards associated with the removal
operat ion will be a safety concem for anyone wi thin a SOD-yard radius of the small boat "Nessy,"
whil e in the area encompassing these poin ts: 460 15' 4 5" N, 123 0 59' 39" W; 46 0 IS' 24" N, 123 0
59' 42" W: 46 13' 32"
, 123 57' 18" W; 46 IS ' 9" N, 123 55 ' 24" W: and 46 15' 54" N,
123 0 58' 6" W, and any associated support vesscl(s). The sa fe ty zolle is needed to protect
personnel and vessel s in the nav igable waters within the sa fet y zone.
IV. Disc uss ion of th e Ru le
Thi s rule establi shes a safety zone from April 25. 2016 to June 3, 2016. The safety zone
will cover all navigab le waters of the Columbia Ri ver within 500 yard s of tile sma ll boat "Nessy,"
and all involved associated support vessel s being used by perso nnel duri ng the remo va l operation,
conducted in th e area encompassed by these points: 460 15' 45"' N, 1230 59' 39" W: 46 0 15' 24"
N, 123 59' 42" W; 46 13' 32" N, 123 57' 18" W; 46 IS' 9" N, 123 55' 24" W: and 46 IS'
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 12 of 18
54" N, 123 58 ' 6" W .. The duration of the zone is intended to protect perso nnel , vessels, and
act ivi sts wanti ng to protest the event in these navigable waters wh il e the removal operation is
being cond ucted. No vessel or person wi ll be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
penn ission from the COTP or a des ignated representati ve.
V. Regulatorv Analvses
We developed thi s rul e after considerin g num erous statutes and Executi ve order related to
rulemaking. Below we summarize our anal yscs based on a number of these stat utes and
Execu ti ve orders, and we discuss First Amendment ri ght s of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Revi ew
Execut ive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of
avai lable regulatory alternatives and , if regulati on is ncccssary, to select regulatory approaches
that maximize net beneti ts. Execu ti ve Order 13563 cmphasizes the importance of quan ti fying
both costs and benefits, of reducin g costs, of han noni zing rules, and of promoting flexibilit y.
Thi s rule has not been dcsignatcd a "signifi cant regulatory action," under Executi ve Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewcd by the Office of Management and Budget.
Thi s regulatory action dctcnnination is based on the size, location , duration , and time-ofyear of the safety zone. Vesse l traffic will be able to safely transit around thi s safety zone whi eh
will not impact the designated area of til e Columbia Ri ver in the area encompassing these points:
46 0 15' 45" N, 123 0 59' 39" W; 460 15' 24" N, 123 0 59' 42" W; 46 0 13' 32" N, 123 0 57' 18" W;
46 15' 9" N, 123 55' 24" W; and 46 IS ' 54" N, 123 58' 6" W. Morcover, the Coast Guard
will issue Broadcast Noti ce to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the
rule allows vessels to seek penni ssion to enter the zone.
S. Impact on Small Entities
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 13 of 18
Th e Regu latory Flexibi lity Act of 1980, 5 U.S .c. 601 - 6 12, as am ended , requires Federal
agencies to co nsider the poten tial impact of regulations on small en tities duri ng rulemak ing. The
lern1 "small entiti es" comprises small busin esses. 1l00forprofil organi zation s Ihal are
ind ependentl y owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental
j urisdi cti ons wi th popUlatio ns o f less than 50.000. The Coast Guard certifi es under 5 U.S.c.
60S(b) that thi s rule will not have a signifi ca nt economi c impact on a substan tial number of small
en tities.
Wh il e some owners or operators of vessels intendi ng to transit the safety zone may be
small en tit ies, for the reasons stated in sect ion V.A. above, thi s rul e will not ha ve a significant
economi c im pact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fa irness Act of 1996
(Publi c Law 104. 12 1). we want to assist small entit ies in understand ing thi s rule. If the rul e
woul d affect your small business, organi zati on, or governm ental jurisdiction and yo u have
questions concerning its provisions or opt ions for compliance, pl ease con tact the person li sted in
the FOR FUR TH ER IN FO RMA TION CONTACT sectioll.
Small businesses may send comments on the action s of Federal empl oyees who enforce. or
otherwise detenni ne compliance wi th, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture
Regu latory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regul atory Fairness
Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annua ll y and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to com ment on action s by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1
888REGF A IR ( 188873 43247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate aga in st small entiti es that
question or compl ain about this rul e or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Coll ect ion of Infonn at ioll
5
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 14 of 18
Thi s rule will not call for a new co ll ect ion of in lonnat ion under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.c. 350 1-3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rul e has impli cations for federa lism under Executi ve Order 13132, Federali sm, if it has a
substantial direct effect on the Stales, on the relationship between the national govemment and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various level s of
government. We have [Link] this rule under that Order and have deternl in ed that it is
con sistent with the fu ndamental federa li sm princip les and preemption requirements described in
Executive order 13 132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal impli cations under Executi ve order 13 175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indi an Tribal Governments, because it does not have a
substant ial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relati onship between the Federal
Government and Indi an tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Govern men t and Indi an tribes. If you believe this rul e has impli cations for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person li sted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMAT ION
CONTACT section above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act
The Unfunded Mandates Refonll Act of 1995 (2 U.S.c. 153 1-1 538) requires Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their di scretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act
addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $1 00,000,000 (adjusted for in fl ation) or more in anyone
year. Though thi s rul e will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the eflects of thi s rule
elsewhere in thi s preamble.
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 15 of 18
F. Environment
We have analY-Led thi s rul e under Department of Ho meland Sccuri ty Management
Directi ve 023-0 1 and Commandant Instructio n M [Link], which guide the Coast Guard in
compl yi ng with the National Env ironmental Poli cy Act of 1969(42 U.S.c. 432 1-4370f), and havc
dctcnnined that thi s action is onc of a catego ry of actions that do not indi viduall y o r cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rul e involves a safcty zone last ing six
wecks, fo r fou r days a week , that wi ll prohibit ent ry within 500 yards of the small boat "Nessy"
and other associated support vessels being used, whil e in the area encompass ing these points: 46 0
15' 45" N. 123 0 59' 39" W; 460 15' 24" N, 123 0 59' 42" W; 46 0 13' 32" N, 123 0 57' 18" W; 46 0
15' 9" N, 123 0 55' 24" W; and 46 0 15' 54" N. 123 0 58' 6" W, whil e perso nnel are co nducting the
remova l operat ion of the Doub le-C rested Connorant. It is categori call y excluded from furth er
review under pa ragraph 34(g) of Fi gure 2- 1 ort hc Commandant Instru cti on. An env ironm enta l
analysis check li st supporti ng thi s detennination and a Categorical Excl usio n Detennination are
availabl e in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments o r
in fo mlali on that may lead to thc di scovery o ra significant envi ronm en tal impact from thi s rul e.
G. Pro test Act ivities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment right s of protesters. Protesters are asked
to contact the person li sted in the FOR FURTHER IN FORMATION CONTACT secti on to
coordinate protest activit ies so that your message can be received wi thout j eopardi zing the safety
or security of peopJe, places o r vessel s.
List of Subject's in 33
CFI~
Part 165
Harbors, Mari ne sa fety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkccpi ng req uiremen ts,
7
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 16 of 18
Security measu res, Waterways.
For the reasons di scussed in the preambl e, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as
foll ows:
PART 165 --R EGU LATED NA VIGATI ON AREAS AN D LI MIT ED ACCESS AREAS
I. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as fo llows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 123 1; 50 U.S.C. lli; 33 CFR 1.05- 1, 6.04- 1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 ;
Department of Homeland Security Delegati on No. 0 170. 1.
2. Add 165. TI 3-0236 to read as fo ll ows:
[Link]-XXXX Safcty Zonc; Columbia River.
(a) Safety Zone. The foll owing area is designated safety zo ne:
( I) Locatioll. The safety zo ne covered by thi s rule will cover all navigabl e waters of the
Columbia Ri ver within 500 yards or the small boat "Nessy" and associated support vessels whil e
in the area encompassing these points: 46 15' 45" N, 123 59' 39" W; 46 15' 24" N, 123 59'
42" W; 460 13' 32" N, 123 0 57' 18" W; 46 0 15' 9" N, 123 0 55' 24" W; and 460 15' 54" N, 123 0
58' 6" W.
(2) EI!forcemellt Period. Thi s safety zo ne is in effect from April 25, 20 16 unti l June 3,
20 16. The rul e will be enforced for the duration or the remova l operation of the Doubl e-Crested
Connorant. The Coast Guard will in fo nn mariners of any change to thi s period of enforcement via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regul ations in 33 CFR Part 165, Subpart
C, no person may enter or remain in the safety zone created in this section or bring, causc to be
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 17 of 18
brought , o r all ow to remain in thc safety zone creatcd in thi s section any vehicl e, vessel , or object
unl ess authori zed by the Captain of the Port or hi s designated represen tati ve.
(c) Enforcement . Any Coast Guard commi ssioned, warrant , or petty offi cer may enforce the rul es
in thi s sectio n. In the navigable waters of the United States to whi ch thi s sectio n applies, when
immcdiate act io n is required and representati vcs of the Coast Guard are not present or are not
present in suffi cient force to provide effect ivc enforcement o f thi s section , any Federal Law
Enforcement O ffi cer or Oregon Law Enfo rcement Officer may enforce the rul es co ntained in thi s
section pursuan t to 46 U.S.C. 701 18. In addition , the Captain of the Port may be assisted by
members of the AmlY Corps of Engi neers and U.S . Department of Agriculture Wildli fe Services
onboard the small boat "Ncssy," and other fcderal , state, or loca l agencies in enforcin g thi s
section.
April 22, 20 16
~--D. J. TR AVERS,
Capta in, U.S. Coast Guard.
Captain of the Port
Secto r Columbia Ri ver
Case 3:16-cv-01869-MO
Document 1
Filed 04/29/16
Page 18 of 18
