throbber
Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`FRIENDS OF THE HEADWATERS,
`17456 Half Moon Rd
`Park Rapids, MN 56470
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
`ENGINEERS; COL. KARL JANSEN,
`District Engineer, St. Paul District,
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff FRIENDS OF THE HEADWATERS for its Complaint alleges and states as
`
`follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act
`
`(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq., and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
`
`2.
`
`Friends of the Headwaters seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the judicial
`
`review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706.
`
`3.
`
`This complaint challenges permits issued by Defendants United States Army Corps of
`
`Engineers (“Corps”) and its St. Paul District Engineer Col. Karl Jansen in late 2020 allowing
`
`Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (“Enbridge”) to construct a new crude oil pipeline running
`
`across northern Minnesota (“the Line 3 oil pipeline”) for 338 miles to Superior, Wisconsin.
`
`4.
`
`On November 23rd, 2020, the Corps issued its “Decision Document.” The document
`
`includes the environmental assessment (EA) undertaken by the Corps evaluating the impacts of
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`those portions of the Line 3 oil pipeline project the Corps chose to consider, its finding of no
`
`significant impact (FONSI), that there are no significant environmental impacts from those
`
`portions of the project, its public interest review, and its reasons for issuing the permits Enbridge
`
`requested. This Decision Document is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. Exhibit A,
`
`Decision Document, Nov. 23, 2020.
`
`5.
`
`The decision document was not made available until December 9, 2020 when the
`
`Corps responded to a Freedom of Information Act request.
`
`6.
`
`The construction of the Line 3 oil pipeline will have significant adverse
`
`environmental impacts on rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands in the Headwaters of the
`
`Mississippi River region and along its route.
`
`7.
`
`The construction of the Line 3 oil pipeline will have significant adverse
`
`environmental impacts on Lake Superior and its watershed.
`
`8.
`
`The construction of the Line 3 oil pipeline will require trenching through or tunneling
`
`under 227 waterbodies and over 800 protected wetlands along its route in Minnesota.
`
`9.
`
`The Defendant Corps nonetheless issued permits for the Line 3 oil pipeline without
`
`conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) as required by NEPA.
`
`10.
`
`The Defendant Corps found in its decisional documents that the portions of the Line 3
`
`oil pipeline project the Corps chose to consider would have no significant environmental
`
`impacts.
`
`11.
`
`The Defendant Corps’ permits failed to comply with the CWA “404(b)(1)
`
`Guidelines,” 40 C.F.R. pt. 230.
`
`12.
`
`The Corps improperly deferred to decisions made by state utility regulators instead of
`
`doing its own environmental analysis under the NEPA and the CWA.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Enbridge was responsible for the massive spill of more than 1 million gallons of
`
`Canadian “tar sands” oil from its “Line 6B” oil pipeline into the Kalamazoo River near Marshall,
`
`Michigan on July 25, 2010, which created extensive ecological, wildlife, environmental and
`
`property damage, and kept the River closed for two years.
`
`14.
`
`Enbridge’s Line 6B oil spill required a cleanup effort over many years that cost
`
`billions of dollars.
`
`15.
`
` In 2016, Enbridge was fined $61 million as part of an overall $177 million settlement
`
`with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Justice for Enbridge’s
`
`massive 2010 oil spill into the Kalamazoo River.
`
`16.
`
`The Corps did not consider less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives in
`
`approving permits for the Line 3 oil pipeline across Minnesota.
`
`17.
`
`The Corps did not consider the risks of a catastrophic Line 3 oil spill like Enbridge’s
`
`massive 2010 Line 6B oil spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.
`
`18.
`
`The Corps did not consider the potential lifecycle climate impacts from putting the
`
`Line 3 oil pipeline into service.
`
`19.
`
`These Corps permits fail to comply with the requirements of both NEPA and the
`
`CWA.
`
`20.
`
`The Corps’ decision to issue the permits was thus arbitrary and capricious, and
`
`contrary to law.
`
`21.
`
`Therefore, the Court must vacate the Corps permits, and must enjoin Enbridge from
`
`proceeding further with construction of its Line 3 oil pipeline.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`22.
`
` This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action
`
`presents a controversy under federal laws including NEPA and the CWA, and their
`
`implementing regulations, and the APA.
`
`23.
`
`The court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 because the United States is
`
`the Defendant.
`
`24.
`
`The relief requested is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) (declaratory) and 2202
`
`(injunctive), and by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
`
`25.
`
`Venue is appropriate in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the Defendant
`
`Corps’ headquarters is located in this district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Friends of the Headwaters is a not-for-profit membership-based organization
`
`under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code dedicated to informing and educating
`
`citizens about the environmental risks of Enbridge’s proposed oil pipelines, and the threats posed
`
`by the Line 3 oil pipeline in the Headwaters of the Mississippi River region.
`
`27.
`
`The Line 3 oil pipeline creates risks and threats of environmental harm to lakes,
`
`streams, wetlands, wild rice (zizania palustris; z. aquatica) stands, drinking water supplies, and
`
`wildlife in northern Minnesota’s “Land of 10,000 Lakes.”
`
`28.
`
`Friends of the Headwaters’ organizational mission has been impaired by Defendant
`
`Corps’ failure to conduct and complete an EIS under NEPA and a permitting review that fully
`
`and fairly assesses potential environmental impacts, evaluates less environmentally damaging
`
`alternatives, considers potential mitigation measures, and addresses whether the project is in the
`
`public interest.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Friends of the Headwaters’ members live, work, and enjoy recreational activities near
`
`the Line 3 oil pipeline’s proposed route, and they are and will be suffering loss of property
`
`values and loss of recreational opportunities from both construction and operation of the Line 3
`
`oil pipeline if it is built.
`
`30.
`
`Construction and operation of the Line 3 oil pipeline would permanently alter the
`
`hydrology of numerous wetlands and change the character of the natural environment in the
`
`Headwaters of the Mississippi River region.
`
`31. Many Friends of the Headwaters members are avid hikers, hunters, anglers, skiers,
`
`bird watchers, and naturalists who use the outdoors for recreational activities and enjoy the
`
`aesthetics of the environment of the Headwaters of the Mississippi River region through which
`
`the Line 3 oil pipeline is planned to be sited.
`
`32.
`
`The trenching, tunneling, and clear-cutting required to construct the Line 3 oil
`
`pipeline, and the presence of the oil pipeline, once built, will irreparably alter the natural
`
`environment of rivers, streams, wetlands, and wildlife habitats that Friends of the Headwaters
`
`members use and enjoy for recreational activities.
`
`33.
`
`These areas will also be at greater risk of contamination from an oil spill or leak if the
`
`Line 3 oil pipeline is built.
`
`34. Many Friends of the Headwaters members draw their drinking water supplies from
`
`aquifers, lakes, and rivers that the Line 3 oil pipeline will cross, trench through, or bore under.
`
`These drinking water resources will be at greater risk of contamination, both from construction
`
`and from potential oil spills and leaks if the Line 3 oil pipeline is built.
`
`35. Many Friends of the Headwaters members have spent their lives in Northern
`
`Minnesota, raised their families there, and intend to keep living there.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`36.
`
`The following Declarations of Friends of the Headwaters’ members are incorporated
`
`by reference and attached as exhibits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c): Exhibit B Decl. of Lowell
`
`Schellack, December 19, 2020; Exhibit C, Decl. of Elizabeth Baker Knutilla, December 19,
`
`2020; Exhibit D, Decl. of Maurice Spangler, December 21, 2020; Exhibit E, Decl. of Douglas
`
`Rasch, January 5, 2021; and Exhibit F, Decl. of Richard Smith, January 14, 2021.
`
`37.
`
`Friends of the Headwaters members’ recreational and aesthetic interests in
`
`Headwaters of the Mississippi River region, and their interest in safe clean drinking water,
`
`cannot be adequately protected in the Corps permitting process for the Line 3 oil pipeline
`
`without a thorough independent scientific review of the potential environmental and
`
`socioeconomic risks, consideration of less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives,
`
`evaluation of potential mitigation measures, and the required public interest review.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers is an agency within the executive
`
`branch of the federal government. Defendant Col. Karl Jansen is the district engineer for the
`
`Corps’ St. Paul District, which processed the permits at issue in this case.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant Corps is authorized by section 404 of the CWA to grant permits allowing
`
`discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and under section 10 of the
`
`Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for work in navigable waters.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant Corps must comply with the environmental review provisions of NEPA
`
`and all applicable NEPA regulations before making any permitting decisions for the Line 3 oil
`
`pipeline.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`41.
`
`In 2010, Enbridge was responsible for the largest inland oil spill in United States
`
`history when its Line 6B oil pipeline burst open and spilled into the Kalamazoo River near
`
`Marshall, Michigan, causing substantial environmental, ecological harms, and property damage.
`
`42.
`
`Enbridge’s Line 6B oil pipeline spill cost more than $1 billion to clean up, and that
`
`environmental remediation took many years.
`
`43.
`
`Enbridge is now proposing to build a new 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline over
`
`338 miles from the northwest corner of Minnesota to a terminal in Clearbrook, Minnesota, then
`
`south past Itasca State Park where the Headwaters of the Mississippi River are located, then to
`
`Park Rapids, Minnesota, and then east on a new route to Enbridge’s oil terminal in Superior,
`
`Wisconsin just across the state border and near the shore of Lake Superior.
`
`44.
`
` This map shows the proposed route of the Line 3 oil pipeline in Minnesota:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`MINN. PUB. UTIL. COMM’N., ENBRIDGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT: PROJECT SUMMARY
`
`INTERACTIVE MAP, https://mn.gov/puc/line3/summary/.
`
`45.
`
`About half of the Line 3 oil pipeline in Minnesota will be routed on a new corridor
`
`away from Enbridge’s existing Mainline pipelines.
`
`46.
`
`The Line 3 oil pipeline will mostly carry heavy, high-sulfur “diluted bitumen”
`
`(“dilbit”) from the “tar sands” area in northern Alberta, Canada.
`
`47.
`
`The Line 3 oil pipeline’s capacity will initially be approximately 760,000 barrels per
`
`day (“bpd’), with an ultimate “nameplate” design capacity of 1,016,000 bpd.
`
`48.
`
`Almost all of the oil through the Line 3 oil pipeline will go to refineries and export
`
`terminals outside of Minnesota. From the Superior, Wisconsin oil terminal, almost all of the
`
`heavier dilbit oil will then be moved through other Enbridge pipelines south through Wisconsin
`
`into Illinois. Then, some of the dilbit will go to refineries east of Chicago or in Ontario, while
`
`most of the dilbit will go to refineries and export terminals along the U.S. Gulf Coast and
`
`shipped to global markets.
`
`49.
`
`Construction of the Line 3 oil pipeline will require trenching through or tunneling
`
`under 227 waterbodies and more than 800 protected wetlands in Minnesota. Those construction
`
`activities will cause additional suspension of solids, sedimentation, altered hydrology, and
`
`erosion.
`
`50. Where Enbridge proposes to use “horizontal directional drilling” to tunnel under
`
`waterbodies or wetlands, there is also the risk that materials used to keep the tunnel open will
`
`“frac out” and be released into and contaminate the environment, as has happened in previous
`
`Minnesota pipeline projects.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Contamination from construction activities on the Line 3 oil pipeline will likely
`
`impair fish, wildlife, and plant habitats along the proposed oil pipeline route.
`
`52.
`
`Construction activities and resulting contamination also threaten surface and
`
`groundwater resources used for drinking water, particularly in the sandy shallow aquifer region
`
`in Minnesota.
`
`53.
`
`In addition, the Line 3 oil pipeline will require: clear-cutting trees along a 95 to 125-
`
`foot wide right-of-way; stockpiling of pipe segments in sensitive habitats; heavy equipment on
`
`narrow rural roads; construction of ancillary and temporary facilities; road construction; and
`
`permanent cutting and control of vegetation along a 50-foot right-of-way along the Line 3 oil
`
`pipeline’s entire route.
`
`54.
`
`Once operation commences, any resulting crude oil spill—and particularly spills of
`
`diluted bitumen—could devastate entire ecosystems, cost billions of dollars to remediate, and
`
`pose a significant threat to human health.
`
`55.
`
`A spill from the Line 3 oil pipeline at any of the waterbody or wetland crossings
`
`could cause serious and irreparable environmental and wildlife damages.
`
`56.
`
`A spill from the Line 3 oil pipeline that reaches the Mississippi River or Lake
`
`Superior could cause catastrophic and irreparable ecological, economic, and environmental
`
`damages.
`
`57.
`
` Diluted bitumen is heavier than many other crude oils and more likely to sink to the
`
`bottom of waterbodies, adhere to suspended particulates, stick to lakebed and lakeshore surfaces,
`
`and harm fish, wildlife, and plants.
`
`58.
`
`Remediation of diluted bitumen oil spills is very difficult and very costly.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`59.
`
` If built and put into operation, the Line 3 oil pipeline will also facilitate increased
`
`extraction and consumption of Canadian tar sands oil, which will increase greenhouse gas
`
`emissions.
`
`60. Minnesota and its citizens are currently harmed by the impacts of global climate
`
`change, including increased severe flooding, increased risk of severe drought, habitat loss for
`
`native plants and animals, and agricultural yield reductions.
`
`61.
`
`These potential adverse environmental impacts attributable to the Line 3 oil pipeline
`
`threaten members of Friends of the Headwaters with imminent and irreparable injury to their
`
`aesthetic, recreational, ecological, and property interests.
`
`62.
`
`The potential adverse environmental impacts from construction and operation of the
`
`pipeline will change the natural environment in which Friends of the Headwaters members
`
`recreate and diminish the value of their property due to the risk of an oil spill.
`
`63.
`
`The potential adverse environmental and climatic impacts will negatively affect the
`
`fish that members catch and eat, the water they drink, and the value of their property along the
`
`proposed Line 3 oil pipeline route.
`
`64.
`
`On September 21, 2018, Enbridge applied to the Corps for permits under section 404
`
`of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act to allow construction of the
`
`Line 3 oil pipeline through Minnesota.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`In January 2020, Enbridge submitted additional application materials to the Corps.
`
`Enbridge’s application materials contained almost no information about potential
`
`alternatives including repair and enhancement of Enbridge’s existing “Mainline” pipeline
`
`system, or less environmentally damaging alternative routes that would pose much less harms,
`
`risks, and threats to lakes, wetlands, rivers, and other fragile freshwater resources.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`67.
`
`Enbridge’s application materials did not explain its choices of methods for each water
`
`crossing.
`
`68.
`
`Enbridge’s application materials did not establish that the methods chosen were the
`
`least environmentally damaging options and alternatives available.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`The Corps acknowledged that it relied on the information provided by Enbridge.
`
`The Corps did not do any independent evaluation of reasonable alternatives or of
`
`Enbridge’s construction choices.
`
`71.
`
`The Corps did not do any independent evaluation of less environmentally damaging
`
`alternatives to Enbridge’s construction choices.
`
`72.
`
`The Corps did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Line 3 oil
`
`pipeline or any part of it.
`
`73.
`
`On November 23rd, 2020, however, the Corps announced that it was granting
`
`Enbridge its requested section 404 and section 10 permits.
`
`74.
`
`The Corps prepared a document it called an “Environmental Assessment, Section
`
`404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation, Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings” for the
`
`Line 3 oil pipeline (the “Decision Document”).
`
`75.
`
`The Corps did not make this Decision Document available until December 9, 2020,
`
`when it responded to a Freedom of Information Act request.
`
`76.
`
`The Corps conceded that its review did “not extend to the entire pipeline construction,
`
`or operation” because it claimed it did “not have sufficient control and responsibility over the
`
`entire project.” Decision Document at 13-14.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`77.
`
`The Corps stated that its “public interest” review contained in the EA was sufficient
`
`to satisfy the requirements of NEPA but the Corps relied on data that Enbridge provided rather
`
`than conduct its own public interest analysis. Decision Document, Appx. A, at 6.
`
`78.
`
`The Corps’ review was limited to only certain water crossing segments of the Line 3
`
`oil pipeline.
`
`79.
`
`The Corps did not fully and fairly analyze all direct and indirect impacts of the Line 3
`
`oil pipeline.
`
`80.
`
`The Corps did not fully and fairly analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of
`
`the Line 3 oil pipeline when added to all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
`
`actions.
`
`81.
`
`The Corps’ review of wetland impacts was limited to the acreage to be directly
`
`trenched or excavated.
`
`82.
`
`The Corps did not review direct or indirect impacts on hydrologically connected trout
`
`streams, wild rice, lakes, wetlands, or waters of high or outstanding biological significance,
`
`beyond those in the acreage to be directly trenched or excavated.
`
`83.
`
`The Corps did not consider the potential of oil spills from the Line 3 oil pipeline,
`
`alternatives to limit the risk of oil spills, or potential mitigation of oil spill risks, other than to
`
`note that oil spills from railcars or trucks occur more often but at considerably lower volumes
`
`than pipeline spills. Decision Document at 20, 25-26.
`
`84.
`
`The Corps stated that consideration of potential oil spills was beyond the scope of its
`
`regulatory authority. Decision Document, Appx. A, at 3.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`85.
`
`The Corps stated that it “does not regulate the overall construction or operation of
`
`pipelines, nor does it regulate the siting of any type of pipeline/utility line, or any substance
`
`within a pipeline.” Decision Document, Appx. A, at 4.
`
`86.
`
`The Corps claims the “social costs of carbon pollution are not within the Corps’
`
`regulatory authority.” Decision Document, Appx A, at 4.
`
`
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
`NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (“NEPA”)
`
`
`Plaintiff realleges each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq., requires that all
`
`federal agencies, including the Corps, take a “hard look” at environmental consequences before
`
`taking a major federal action.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`The Corps’ approval of a permit for the Line 3 oil pipeline is a major federal action.
`
`The NEPA “hard look” requires that federal agencies “have available, and carefully
`
`consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts” before approving a
`
`project. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).
`
`91.
`
` NEPA requires that federal agencies “guarantee [] that the relevant information [on
`
`environmental impacts] will be made available to the larger audience,” including the general
`
`public and organizations such as Friends of the Headwaters, so they may play a meaningful “role
`
`in the decision-making process and the implementation of the decision.” Id.
`
`
`
`92.
`
`Before taking any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
`
`human environment,” federal agencies, including the Corps, must prepare a “detailed statement”
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`on “the environmental impact of the proposed action” and “any adverse environmental effects
`
`which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
`
`93.
`
`To determine whether a permit or other federal action may significantly affect the
`
`environment, and therefore require that a full EIS be conducted, a federal agency must consider
`
`ten factors. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (2019).1 These factors include the degree to which:
`
`a.
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`94.
`
`The proposed action affects public health or safety;
`The possible effects on the human environment are likely to be highly
`controversial;
`The possible effects on the human environment are likely highly uncertain or
`involve unique or unknown risks;
`The action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or
`represents a decision in principle about a future consideration;
`The action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but
`cumulatively significant impacts; and
`The action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its
`habitat.
`
`In Environmental Impact Statements, agencies including the Corps must consider all
`
`direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and a “range of actions, alternatives, and impacts.” 40
`
`C.F.R. § 1508.25 (2019); 33 C.F.R. § 325, App. B(7)(b)(2)(iv)(C)(3).
`
`
`1 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) revised its NEPA regulations after Enbridge
`submitted its application in this case. Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural
`Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85 Fed. Reg. 43, 304 (July 16, 2020). This
`complaint cites to the rules that were in effect during most of the Corps’ environmental review in
`this case. Without express statutory authority to the contrary, rules do not apply retroactively.
`Bower v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988). The Corps has incorporated the CEQ
`requirements by reference in its own regulations. 33 C.F.R. § 325, App. B (2). Notwithstanding
`the fact the Corps must apply the rules in effect when its decision was made, President Biden
`recently ordered the CEQ to update its guidance on consideration of greenhouse gas emissions
`from federal actions within the purview of NEPA. EXECUTIVE ORDER ON PROTECTING PUBLIC
`HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND RESTORING SCIENCE TO TACKLE THE CLIMATE CRISIS,
`Executive Office of the President, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
`actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-
`science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/, (Jan. 20, 2021). There is indication that more changes to the
`regulatory structure requiring deeper consideration of environmental impacts are forthcoming.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`95.
`
`“Direct” impacts are effects “caused by the action and occur[ring] at the same time
`
`and place.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a) (2019).
`
`96.
`
` “Indirect” impacts are effects “which are caused by the action and are later in time or
`
`farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b).
`
`97.
`
`“Cumulative” impacts “result from the incremental impact of the action when added
`
`to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
`
`(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.
`
`98.
`
`The agency’s cumulative impact analysis serves to assess impacts that might be
`
`“individually minor, but collectively significant” over a period of time. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.
`
`99.
`
`“A meaningful cumulative impacts analysis must identify (1) the area in which the
`
`effects of the proposed project will be felt; (2) the impacts that are expected in that area from the
`
`proposed project; (3) other actions—past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable—
`
`that have had or are expected to have impacts in the same area; (4) the impacts or expected
`
`impacts from those other actions; and (5) the overall impact that can be expected if the individual
`
`impacts are allowed to accumulate.” Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304,
`
`1319 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
`
`100. NEPA also requires consideration of “connected” actions in a single NEPA review.
`
`These are actions that “cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or
`
`simultaneously” and “are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on larger action for
`
`their justification.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 (2019).
`
`101. The Defendant Corps’ regulations require that the NEPA analysis must “address the
`
`impacts of the specific activity requiring a [Corps] permit and those portions of the entire project
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`over which the district engineer has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant Federal
`
`review.” 33 C.F.R. § 325, App. B(7)(b)(1).
`
`102. The Corps must analyze oil spill risks from pipelines as part of its permitting process.
`
`E.g. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 255 F.Supp.3d 101, 133-34
`
`(D.D.C. 2017).
`
`103. The Line 3 oil pipeline could not go forward in Minnesota unless and until the Corps
`
`approved Enbridge’s requested permits.
`
`104. The Corps’ analysis of direct impacts foresees that all impacts on wetlands will be
`
`temporary and reparable. The Corps reached these conclusions, not based on its own expertly
`
`collected data and analysis, but by deferring to state utilities regulators’ analysis.
`
`105. There are numerous direct impacts that may go unconsidered if the Corps is permitted
`
`to delegate its duty to analyze the environmental impacts of the project to state agencies with less
`
`specific expertise in water regulation.
`
`106. The Corps unlawfully segmented its NEPA review by separately considering various
`
`parts of the Line 3 oil pipeline.
`
`107. The Corps did not assess the indirect impacts of the Line 3 oil pipeline, including but
`
`not limited to the indirect impacts on waterbodies and wetlands beyond the specific areas being
`
`trenched or tunneled under.
`
`108. The Corps’ cumulative impacts analysis focused solely on environmental impacts
`
`from construction at individual crossings.
`
`109. The Corps thus did not conduct a legally sufficient cumulative impacts analysis.
`
`110. The Corps failed to fully and fairly evaluate the risks and impacts of oil spills along
`
`the Line 3 oil pipeline route, especially at waterbody and wetland crossing points.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`111. The Corps failed to quantify or adequately evaluate the cumulative impacts on
`
`climate change, including the likelihood of increased lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and
`
`their social costs from increased extraction and consumption of Canadian oil likely to result from
`
`approval of the Line 3 oil pipeline and connected actions.
`
`112. The social costs of climate change include increased flooding in Minnesota causing
`
`damage to property owned by members of Friends of the Headwaters and many other people,
`
`agencies and organizations, and the diminishment of habitat for animals that the members of
`
`Friends of the Headwaters and many other people hunt, fish, and watch for recreational and
`
`aesthetic purposes.
`
`113. The Corps did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Line 3 oil
`
`pipeline permits in Minnesota.
`
`114. The Corps’ decision to not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, but instead
`
`make a “finding of no significant impact,” or “FONSI” (Decision Document at 128), violated
`
`NEPA because the Corps failed to fully and fairly consider all direct, indirect, and cumulative
`
`impacts from construction and operation of the Line 3 oil pipeline in reaching its decision.
`
`115. The Corps violated NEPA by failing to analyze all reasonable alternatives to
`
`accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed agency action, as required by 40 C.F.R. §
`
`1502.14.
`
`116. The Corps did not consider alternatives such as expanding the capacity of Enbridge’s
`
`existing Mainline pipelines, alternative routes that would avoid putting important and fragile
`
`freshwater resources at risk, or other pipeline projects underway or under consideration to
`
`transport crude oil from Alberta to global markets with fewer environmental risks.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`117. The Corps did not evaluate the “purpose and need” for the Line 3 oil pipeline project
`
`in light of current and projected reduced consumer demand for refined petroleum products, or in
`
`light of anticipated public policies to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
`
`118. The Corps unlawfully concluded that it could defer to Minnesota state utility
`
`regulators to avoid having to independently consider need or any alternatives to the proposed
`
`route.
`
`119. The Corps’ decision to make a finding of no significant impact and to not prepare an
`
`Environmental Impact Statement for the large Line 3 oil pipeline project through some of the
`
`most high-value freshwater resources in the United States violated NEPA and applicable NEPA
`
`regulations.
`
`120.
`
` The section 404 permits issued to Enbridge by the Corps to construct the Line 3 oil
`
`pipeline are invalid because such permits were not preceded by an environmental review process
`
`that complied with NEPA. The Corps’ granting of those permits was therefore arbitrary,
`
`capricious, and not in accordance with the law, in violation of the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706.
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
` CLEAN WATER ACT
`
`
`121.
`
` Plaintiff realleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
`
`122. The purpose of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) is “to restore and maintain the
`
`chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
`
`123. To meet that goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into
`
`waters of the United States absent the Corps’ issuance of a permit under section 404 of the
`
`CWA. 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 01/21/21 Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`124. The Corps may not grant a section 404 permit before taking “all appropriate and
`
`practicable steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to waters of the United States.” 40
`
`C.F.R. § 230.91(c)(2).
`
`125. The Corps may not grant a section 404 permit if there is a “practicable

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket