133 F.4th 661
6th Cir.2025Background
- Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) sought state approval for a 32-mile natural gas pipeline in Tennessee, including over 100 waterbody crossings and rocky terrain requiring special construction methods.
- TGP applied for both an Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit (ARAP) and §401 Water Quality Certification from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) as required by federal and state law.
- TDEC issued the certification with several conditions to minimize environmental impacts, after requiring project modifications and hosting a public hearing.
- Environmental groups (Sierra Club and Appalachian Voices) petitioned for review, arguing TDEC’s permitting review was inadequate under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The petitioners asserted multiple procedural and substantive flaws, including insufficient analysis for each water crossing, improper delegation of regulatory authority on rock removal, failure to consider downstream sedimentation, improper assessment of construction methods, and lack of cumulative impact analysis.
- The Sixth Circuit found standing for the petitioners but upheld TDEC’s decision, applying deferential APA review; there was a dissent on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of waterbody crossing review | TDEC didn’t assess least-impactful method for each crossing individually | TDEC considered alternatives and specifics for each crossing | For TDEC; review was sufficient |
| Delegation of authority on rock removal | TDEC unlawfully let TGP choose methods without proper agency oversight | Conditions required agency review/authorization for controlled blasting | For TDEC; oversight was adequate |
| Evaluation of wet weather conveyance impacts | TDEC failed to assess sedimentation/violations in such channels | Certification/conditions ensured compliance and de minimis impacts | For TDEC; no APA violation |
| Cumulative impacts and baseline data review | TDEC didn’t analyze baseline/cumulative impacts as required | Minimal authorized permanent impact, restoration conditions imposed | For TDEC; analysis sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty. v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (states may condition water quality certifications under the CWA)
- S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env’t Prot., 547 U.S. 370 (water quality certifications are required for state approval of federally licensed projects)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (standing principles for environmental groups)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (standard for arbitrary and capricious review under the APA)
- Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (Article III standing requirements)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (adversely affected parties have standing to challenge discretionary agency decisions)
- Chamber of Com. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 115 F.4th 740 (APA review applies to Clean Water Act claims)