Photograph of R. Timothy McCrum


Government Experience

  • Department of the Interior—Attorney Advisor, Office of the Solicitor (1984-1986)


  • Franklin & Marshall College , B.A. geology (1980)
  • Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, J.D. (1983)


  • District of Columbia
  • Pennsylvania (inactive)

Environment & Natural Resources – Will Streamlining NEPA Implementation Work?

Click to read this article from
Crowell & Moring's Regulatory Forecast 2019

Regulatory Forecast 2019

R. Timothy McCrum

Washington, D.C.
Phone: +1 202.624.2752
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595

R. Timothy McCrum is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and is a member of the Environment & Natural Resources Group. He has served as a co-chair and a Steering Committee member of the Group. With Crowell & Moring since 1986, he has experience with a wide variety of issues involving litigation, international arbitration, legislation, rulemaking, negotiation, and counseling.

Mr. McCrum has litigated cases and counseled companies in matters arising under a wide variety of environmental and natural resource laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, CERCLA, the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the general mining laws, and the federal mineral leasing laws. He has represented companies in administrative proceedings and litigation involving projects ranging from gold mines to oil and gas exploration and production facilities. His representation of clients in litigation includes:

  • BedRoc Limited, LLC, et al. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 124 S. Ct. 1587 (2004), arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Petitioners in a long-running controversy over whether private landowners owned the sand and gravel located on property granted under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919, where Congress reserved "valuable minerals" for the United States. The Interior Board of Land Appeals, the federal district court in Nevada, and the Ninth Circuit had ruled in favor of the government. The Supreme Court reversed, with six justices agreeing with BedRoc that Congress did not intend to reserve the sand and gravel of Nevada when it enacted the Pittman Act in 1919. [Click for a transcript of the oral argument and other case information from]
  • Minard Run Oil Co., et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116520 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2009), aff'd 670 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. Sept. 20, 2011) (rehearing denied Dec. 20, 2011), as lead counsel representing the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association (PIOGA) challenging an April 9, 2009, U.S. Forest Service Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club and a contemporaneous Forest Service drilling ban directive requiring NEPA compliance in the form of a forest-wide EIS before the Forest Service could process oil and gas well drilling proposals on private oil and gas estates within the 500,000-acre Allegheny National Forest in the Marcellus Shale region. The appellate court found that substantial economic injuries and interference with real property rights constituted the irreparable injury needed for an injunction, and further, stating that: "granting the injunction would vindicate the public's interests in aiding the local economy," protect "the property rights of mineral rights owners," and ensure "public participation in agency rulemaking as required by the APA." Following a three-day evidentiary hearing, the district court granted a preliminary injunction in 2009 barring implementation of the Settlement Agreement and drilling ban. The district court granted final judgment vacating the Settlement Agreement in 2012. Minard Run Oil Co., et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, 894 F. Supp.2d 642 (W.D. Pa. 2012), aff'd 2013 WL 5357066 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2013).  In a settlement reached with the U.S. Justice Department on May 16, 2014, PIOGA recovered $530,000 in partial attorney's fees from the federal government.  In the FT Innovative Lawyers 2013 report, Financial Times commended Crowell & Moring for this litigation, ranking it as among the most innovative litigation cases in the USA.
  • Moncrief v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 339 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018). Crowell & Moring successfully challenged the cancellation of an oil-and-gas lease on federal land issued over 30 years prior. The court ordered reinstatement of the lease, ruling both that the cancellation was arbitrary and capricious, and that Moncrief was a bona fide purchaser protected from such action, in any event (appeal pending).
  • Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n et al. v. Mont. Dep't of Envtl. Quality et al., Montana Fifth Judicial Dist. Ct., Jefferson County, No. DV-08-10896 (July 21, 2011), representing Barrick Gold's Golden Sunlight Mine. The court held that the Montana Constitution does not require costly backfilling of an open pit gold mine, where a supplemental EIS showed environmental harm from acid-rock drainage would result. The court reasoned that as a constitutionally-protected right, a clean and healthful environment outweighed any aesthetic values, stating: "Health is more important than beauty." The court further reasoned that it had no authority to elevate one visual perspective over another, stating: "Among permanently located viewers, there may be those who are delighted at the view as they consider the benefits they and their family members have obtained from employment, contribution to the tax base, etc." In a related case, Montana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Dep't of Envt'l Quality and Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc., 382 Mont. 102, 365 P.3d 454 (Jan. 12, 2016), the Montana Supreme Court ruled that relitigation of legal issues resolved in the 2011 decision was barred by collateral estoppel, and resolved the remaining issues involving a mine expansion in favor of Barrick Gold's Golden Sunlight Mine's subsidiary.
  • National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Service and Elkhorn Minerals LLC, 177 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2016 WL 1273190 (D.D.C. March 31, 2016), representing the gravel project developer on severed mineral estates within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands near the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The district court first denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to block the project and then denied a preliminary injunction motion, and thereafter granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, upholding the adequacy of the Environmental Assessment under NEPA, ruling in part that: “Elkhorn Minerals held valid mineral rights that predated the Forest Service’s acquisition of the surface; the acquisition was explicitly subject to existing mineral rights; the existing mineral rights are dominant over surface rights under North Dakota law; and the views of Congress mandate that such mineral rights be respected.”
  • The General Electric Company and United Nuclear Corporation v. United States of America, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 1:10-CV-00404-MCA-RHS(D. New Mexico, Sept. 6, 2011) (Order approving Partial Consent Decree and Judgment), representing GE and UNC in CERCLA cost recovery and contribution claims against the U.S. arising from the former uranium mine known as the Northeast Church Rock Mine in New Mexico. The mine was operated on land owned by the U.S. from the 1960s through the early 1980s. The CERCLA claims sought to hold the U.S. liable as a facility owner and arranger, given that the U.S. authorized uranium mining on this site in 1959 coordinated by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic Energy Act to create a domestic uranium mining industry. The partial consent decree approved by the court provided for a $2.5 million payment to GE/UNC and allocated 33 percent of the future CERCLA liabilities to the U.S. government.
  • Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2003), representing the National Mining Association as an intervenor successfully defending against challenges to the U.S. Interior Department hardrock mining regulations involving issues under NEPA and federal public land statutes. The Interior regulations at issue rescinded a controversial discretionary "mine veto" authority, and they allowed mineral exploration activities disturbing up to five acres of land to proceed without site-specific NEPA reviews. 
  • Columbia Gas Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., et al., No. 99-2071 (W.D. Pa.), representing Consol in action to bar longwall mining from proceeding through a coal seam above an underground gas storage field. Following a mini-trial and court-sponsored mediation in 2001, a settlement was reached to allow the planned mining to proceed.
  • Mobil Oil Corp. v. United States, No. 99-1467-A (E.D. Va.), representing ExxonMobil against the U.S. in a CERCLA contribution action involving the Stibnite Mine Site in Idaho where gold, antimony and tungsten were mined from the 1930s through the 1990s. Following discovery and summary judgment motions, the parties reached a settlement, entered August 15, 2000, to provide Mobil with a 100 percent release of liability for future response costs, and the U.S. agreed to pay Mobil $1.55 million for past response costs.
  • National Wildlife Federation v. Westphal , 116 F.Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2000), defending two Mississippi Levee Boards and 50 local government entities as intervenors in successfully opposing a suit by environmental groups under NEPA and other laws against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which sought to invalidate a major flood control project for the Mississippi Delta.
  • Secretary of Labor v. Keystone Coal Mining Corporation, 151 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1998), upholding rejection of the enforcement position of Secretary of Labor (Mine Safety & Health Administration) in longstanding coal dust sample tampering litigation involving dozens of coal mining companies, leading to the vacation of more than 3,000 tampering citations.
  • Amigos Bravos v. Molycorp, Inc., 47 E.R.C. 1641, 1998 WL 792159 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 1998), obtaining dismissal of Clean Water Act citizen suit involving a New Mexico molybdenum mine. The court held that the exclusive avenue for judicial review was not a citizen suit, but direct review of the permit renewal decision in the court of appeals, for which the plaintiffs had long been out of time.
  • United States ex. rel. North Santiam Watershed Council, et al. v. Kinross Gold, Inc., et al., 1998 WL 118176 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 1998), successfully defending eighteen metal mining companies against qui tam claims that they had fraudulently obtained mineral rights on federal lands by failing to disclose their alleged foreign ownership in mining claim records with the Interior Department.
  • National Mining Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 95-3519 (8th Cir. 1998), challenging an EPA interpretive rule under the Clean Water Act. The case settled on favorable terms following oral argument before the Eighth Circuit; EPA published a Federal Register clarification retracting substantial portions of the challenged interpretation of the ore mining effluent limitations guidelines. 63 Fed. Reg. 42534 (Aug. 7, 1998).
  • Edwards v. United States and Independence Mining Co., 1998 WL 22029 (9th Cir. Jan.15, 1998), obtaining dismissal of citizen challenge under NEPA and other laws to an Interior Department land exchange at a Nevada gold mine.
  • Friends of Santa Fe County v. Lac Minerals Inc., et al., 892 F.Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1995), representing Lac Minerals, a Barrick Gold subsidiary, in defending against this citizen suit filed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act. On summary judgment, the court ruled that the mining waste at issue was exempt from RCRA "hazardous waste" regulation and that the RCRA imminent and substantial endangerment claim was barred by the abstention doctrine due to the pendency of a related state administrative proceeding. The court denied the citizen group's motion for summary judgment on the Clean Water Act claims, and the suit settled in 1996 on favorable terms.
  • AFL-CIO, et al. v. OSHA, 956 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1992), arguing for the American Mining Congress in this landmark case which invalidated 428 OSHA permissible exposure limits.
  • United States v. Envirite Corp., 143 F.R.D. 27, 34 ERC 1613 (D. Conn. 1991), moving to vacate a consent decree that required a waste treatment and disposal company to pay a $60,000 civil penalty under RCRA and adhere to burdensome and costly operating conditions, resulting in a judicial finding that the U.S. EPA had engaged in "extraordinary misconduct" in wrongfully withholding exculpatory evidence. The court vacated the consent decree under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), and ordered EPA to publish a retraction about the case in EPA's Enforcement Accomplishments Report.

From 1984 to 1986, Mr. McCrum served as attorney-advisor with the Energy and Resources Division of the Solicitor's Office, U.S. Department of the Interior. He has served as the chair of the Mining Committee of the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy and Resources Law (1997-99), as a member of the Bush-Cheney Transition, Interior Advisory Committee (2000), as a Trustee of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation (2000-03), and currently on the Board of Litigation for the Mountain States Legal Foundation. He has been consistently listed in Who's Who Legal and The Best Lawyers in America since 2000. Mr. McCrum holds a B.A. degree in geology from Franklin & Marshall College (1980) and a J.D. degree from Lewis & Clark School of Law (1983). He is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.


Admitted to practice: District of Columbia, Pennsylvania (inactive), several U.S. Courts of Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court

Highlights, News & Knowledge

Speeches & Presentations

  • "Oil and Gas Investment Arbitrations: Protecting Oil and Gas Projects Against Political Risk," University of Houston Law Center and the International Law Institute (October 31, 2014). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Challenging 'Sue and Settle' Restrictions on Resource Development," 5th Law of Shale Plays Conference, Pittsburgh, PA (September 4-5, 2014). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Sagebrush Rebel - Reagan's Environmental Legacy," The Federalist Society, Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Webinar (November 18, 2013). Presenter: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Mining Regulatory Risks and Opportunities in the US Political Climate of 2012," Northwest Mining Association 2011 Annual Convention, Reno, Nevada (December 1, 2011). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Mining and Regulatory Risks and Opportunities in the US," CRU and Fraser Institute Mining Business Risks Summit 2011, Toronto, Canada (October 26, 2011). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Update on Allegheny Forest Litigation and Broader Issues With Oil and gas Operations in Marcellus Shale Region National Forests," Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association 2011 Spring Meeting, Seven Springs Mt. Resort, Pennsylvania (May 24-26, 2011). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Oil and Gas Operations on Public Lands in the Marcellus Shale Region," 32nd Annual Institute, Energy & Mineral Law Foundation, Nemacolin Resort, Pennsylvania (May 15-17, 2011). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Roundtable on Cross-Cutting issues on Energy & Natural Resources Development," University of Dundee, Centre for Energy & Mineral Law and Policy, Old Course Inn, St. Andrews, Scotland (October 15, 2009). Moderator: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • "Where Sacred Sites Are Deemed More Precious Than Gold, Is The Mineral Claimant Due Compensation?: The Odyssey Of Glamis Gold Ltd. And The NAFTA Investment Protections," Rocky Mt. Mineral Law Institute, Snowmass, Colorado (July 17-19, 2008). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum, with introductory remarks by Charles A. Jeannes, Exec. V.P. Goldcorp Inc.
  • "Judicial Re-Examination of BedRoc Principles of Mineral Law," National Stone, Sand and Gravel Ass'n Legal Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada (March 14, 2005). Speaker: R. Timothy McCrum.
  • Testimony of R. Timothy McCrum before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources regarding H.R. 5155, A Bill to Protect Sacred Native American Federal Lands (September 25, 2002).
  • Testimony of R. Timothy McCrum before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Energy & Minerals Resources, Hearing on Mining Regulatory Issues and Improving the General Mining Laws (August 3, 1999).


Client Alerts & Newsletters

Media Mentions

Firm News & Announcements

Aug.20.2020 The Best Lawyers in America 2021 Recognizes 46 Crowell & Moring Attorneys, Two Selected as Lawyer of the Year
Aug.16.2019 The Best Lawyers in America 2020 Recognizes 49 Crowell & Moring Attorneys, Three Selected as Lawyer of the Year
Aug.15.2018 The Best Lawyers in America 2019 Recognizes 38 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Oct.31.2017 The Best Lawyers in America 2018 Recognizes 40 Crowell & Moring Lawyers
May.05.2017 Crowell & Moring Featured in Global Arbitration Review’s 10th Annual "GAR 100" List
Aug.18.2016 The Best Lawyers in America 2017 Recognizes 38 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Mar.22.2016 Crowell & Moring Featured in Global Arbitration Review’s 9th Edition “GAR 100” List
Aug.25.2015 The Best Lawyers in America 2016 Recognizes 39 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Aug.28.2014 The Best Lawyers In America 2015 Recognizes 40 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Jul.01.2014 25 Crowell & Moring Lawyers Recognized by The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2014
Nov.21.2013 Crowell & Moring Ranks Among Financial Times' 2013 Most Innovative Firms
Sep.03.2013 The Best Lawyers In America 2014 Recognizes 41 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Jun.24.2013 Crowell & Moring Recognized by National Law Journal as Washington, D.C. "General Civil Litigation" Department of the Year
Jun.01.2013 26 Crowell & Moring Lawyers Recognized by The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2013
Jan.29.2013 Crowell & Moring Releases Report, "Litigation Forecast 2013"
Sep.04.2012 The Best Lawyers in America 2013 Recognizes 44 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Jun.01.2012 26 Crowell & Moring Lawyers Recognized by The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2012
Aug.30.2011 The Best Lawyers in America 2012 Recognizes 43 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Jun.01.2011 28 Crowell & Moring Lawyers Recognized by The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2011
Aug.03.2010 The Best Lawyers in America 2011 Recognizes 44 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Jul.01.2010 28 Crowell & Moring Lawyers Recognized by The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2010
Jul.01.2009 21 Crowell & Moring Lawyers Recognized by The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2009
Jul.23.2008 16 Crowell & Moring Lawyers Recognized by The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2008
Sep.11.2007 The Best Lawyers in America 2008 Recognizes 34 Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Jun.17.2005 Crowell & Moring Clients Proclaim Victory in Crucial Seventh Circuit Court Environmental Ruling
Dec.17.2004 Best Lawyers Guide Recognizes Four Crowell & Moring Attorneys
Apr.01.2004 Crowell & Moring Prevails Before U.S. Supreme Court in Long Running Western Mineral Rights Controversy