Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
255 F. Supp. 3d 101
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- DAPL is a ~1,200-mile oil pipeline crossing under Lake Oahe on federal land; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe challenge the Lake Oahe crossing and associated permits.
- The Corps issued a Final EA and a Mitigated FONSI in July 2016, concluding no significant environmental impact, and granted NWP 12 verification and a Section 408 permit for Lake Oahe crossing.
- The Tribes allege NEPA violations, failure to adequately assess spill impacts on treaty rights and environmental justice, and that the Corps’ analysis was not a hard look.
- After培训 a December 2016 Interior Solicitor opinion and Darcy’s December 2016 memorandum, the Army paused easement decisions but later, under the Trump administration, granted an easement in February 2017 with 36 conditions.
- Standing Rock moved for partial summary judgment on NEPA and related decisions; Cheyenne River joined, challenging Section 408 and MLA easement decisions and alleging trust-responsibility breaches.
- The court granted partial summary judgment to some claims, remanded others for additional analysis, and reserved rulings on remand-related remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Corps violated NEPA by not preparing an EIS for the Lake Oahe crossing | Standing Rock: EA/FONSI fails hard look, ignores treaty rights and EJ | Corps: EA/FONSI adequate; spill impacts discussed; no need for EIS | NEPA mostly satisfied but with key exceptions for treaty rights and EJ; remand ordered |
| Whether the February 2017 easement decision disciplined as arbitrary/reversal of policy | Standing Rock: reversal without adequate justification | Corps: policy shift supported by total record and CEQ rules | Court finds change in policy permissible with reasoned explanation; remand could address additional analyses |
| Whether the Corps breached its trust responsibilities to the Tribes | Breach of trust due to failure to adequately analyze treaty-right impacts | No statutory fiduciary duty identified; MLA/APA avenues available | No viable trust claim; grounded in statute/treaty authorities not sufficiently identified |
| Whether the NWP 12 verification was arbitrary and capricious | GCs 7/17 not satisfied prior to verification; spill impacts ignored | NWP 12 framework allows verification without full GC-by-GC analysis | NWP 12 verification not arbitrary; but subject to remand for environmental-justice/treaty-right spill analysis |
| Remedy for NEPA violation should be vacatur or remand | Vacatur standard under Allied-Signal | Remand may be appropriate to cure deficiencies | Remand with potential vacatur; briefing ordered on remand remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (NEPA procedural nature and requirement to consider environmental concerns)
- Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (NEPA and hard look standards; deference to agency judgments)
- Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA: courts defer to agency when it balances costs and mitigation)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA: agency must discuss environment and alternatives; not require perfection)
- Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (NEPA: hard look standard; whether agency adequately considered impacts)