301 F. Supp. 3d 50
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,200-mile private crude‑oil pipeline; ~97% crosses private land and ~3% crosses federal lands/easements requiring permits from three Corps districts and one Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) district.
- Yankton Sioux Tribe (headquartered in South Dakota, ~9,000 members) challenged the federal agencies' NEPA analyses and other claims after agencies issued three Environmental Assessments (EAs), three Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), and one categorical exclusion for different, geographically separate federal actions related to DAPL.
- Procedurally: Yankton filed suit consolidated with other tribal actions; construction is complete and oil is flowing; remand proceedings on related claims are ongoing.
- Yankton moved for partial summary judgment arguing the agencies impermissibly segmented NEPA review (should have done a consolidated/programmatic assessment of connected/similar federal actions) and raised treaty/trust and NHPA claims.
- The Court: (1) dismissed Yankton’s treaty/trust and UNDRIP claims (plaintiff withdrew treaty claim and prior precedent bars it); (2) found Yankton has standing; (3) held NHPA claims moot because construction is complete and no meaningful relief remains; (4) denied Yankton’s NEPA segmentation challenge and granted defendants’ cross‑motion (agencies acted within discretion and any error was harmless).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agencies unlawfully "segmented" NEPA review of federal permits (connected/similar actions under 40 C.F.R. §1508.25) | Agencies should have consolidated all federal approvals for DAPL into a single NEPA document because the federal permits are connected or similar and cumulative impacts require programmatic review | Agencies had discretion to scope reviews by jurisdiction; the EAs addressed geographically/separately limited federal actions and each had independent utility | Denied. The EAs/FONSIs were for discrete, geographically distinct federal actions; not connected or similar under §1508.25; agency scoping entitled to deference; any error harmless because no concrete prejudice shown |
| Whether Yankton may pursue treaty, trust, and UNDRIP claims | Yankton argued agencies failed to obtain free, informed consent and consider 1851 Treaty rights and trust obligations | Defendants pointed to prior rulings rejecting similar treaty/trust claims and urged dismissal; UNDRIP is non‑binding | Yankton withdrew treaty claim; Court granted summary judgment to defendants on treaty/trust and UNDRIP grounds (no legal basis preserved) |
| Standing to bring NEPA and NHPA claims | Yankton asserted tribal members use and value affected areas (ceremony, gathering, water use) and alleged imminent/spiritual harms | Defendants argued declarations show only past visits/generalized grievances, insufficient to confer Article III standing | Held: Yankton established Article III standing for NEPA/NHPA procedural claims based on declared use and threatened injuries |
| Mootness of NHPA claims | Yankton sought relief for alleged failures to consult under NHPA and to define Area of Potential Effects | Defendants argued construction completion made consultation claims non‑redressable; any declaratory relief would be advisory | Held: NHPA claims dismissed as moot because construction/completion means court cannot grant meaningful relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (NEPA imposes procedural requirements)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (limits on requiring whole‑pipeline NEPA review where federal jurisdiction covers only small portions)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) (synergistic proposals with regional impact must be considered together)
- Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (connected actions doctrine applied where agency had jurisdiction over entire pipeline segments)
- Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (substantial independent utility test in segmentation analysis)