Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
419 U.S. App. D.C. 416
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- This case concerns NEPA review scope for the Flanagan South oil pipeline across 593 miles, largely on private land.
- Sierra Club challenged federal approvals (easements, CWA verifications, ESA Incidental Take Statement) as causing a major federal action requiring NEPA analysis.
- Agencies granted rights-of-way to cross federal/Indian lands and verified 1,950 water crossings under Nationwide Permit 12, with ESA consultation.
- The Service issued a Biological Opinion with an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) covering the entire pipeline, while the Corps/Bureau incorporated ITS terms only within verified segments.
- District court granted summary judgment for agencies and Enbridge, holding NEPA review was not required for the entire pipeline.
- Sierra Club appeals asserting pipeline-wide NEPA analysis was required and challenging the Corps’ CWA verifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NEPA require pipeline-wide analysis for Flanagan South? | Sierra Club argues for full-pipeline NEPA | Defendants urge segmentation; only verified areas require NEPA | No; NEPA review limited to discrete segments |
| Is the ITS (Incidental Take Statement) a federal action triggering NEPA? | ITS should trigger NEPA for entire project | ITS alone not action; Corps’ implementation limited | Corps implementation of ITS is action, but limited to verified segments |
| Are CWA verifications under Nationwide Permit 12 required to assess the entire pipeline? | Regional analysis insufficient; must cover whole pipeline | Regional/segment analysis appropriate under NWP 12 | Regional analyses sufficient; no pipeline-wide NEPA required |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Sierra Club’s motion to supplement? | Proposed amendments would bolster NEPA claims | Amendments would not affect dispositive legal analysis | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Citizen v. Dept. of Transportation, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (NEPA’s hard look requires analysis; does not dictate outcomes)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA requires consideration of environmental effects and alternatives)
- Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (anti-segmentation; connected actions doctrine)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014) (Section 7 ITS context; agency action dynamics in NEPA)
- Bostick v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 787 F.3d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Corps NEPA regulations and scope of review)