throbber
Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 1 of 45
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`
`NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION,
`DRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY, WISCONSIN
`WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`21-cv-096-wmc &
`21-cv-306,
`Consolidated
`
`RURAL UTITLITIES SERVICE,
`CHRISTOPHER MCLEAN, Acting Administrator,
`Rural Utilities Service,
`UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
`CHARLES WOOLEY, Midwest Regional Director, and
`SABRINA CHANDLER, Manager, Upper Mississippi River
`National Wildlife and Fish Refuge,
`UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
`LIEUTENANT GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON, Chief of
`Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
`Engineers, COLONEL STEVEN SATTINGER, Commander
`And District Engineer, Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of
`Engineers, and COLONEL KARL JANSEN, Commander and
`District Engineer, St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAN TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC,
`DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, & ITC
`MIDWEST LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
` and
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`In this lawsuit, plaintiffs National Wildlife Refuge Association, Driftless Area Land
`
`Conservancy, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, and Defenders of Wildlife challenge the
`
`actions of various federal agencies permitting the Cardinal-Hickory Creek (“CHC”)
`
`Transmission Line Project, which would run from the Hickory Creek substation west of
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 2 of 45
`
`Dubuque, Iowa, through far Southwest Wisconsin near Cassville and the Mississippi River
`
`to Middleton in the center of Southern Wisconsin, all through what is known as “the
`
`Driftless Area.”1 The utility companies charged with building and operating the CHC --
`
`American Transmission Company, LLC (“ATC”), Dairyland Power Cooperative
`
`(“Dairyland”) and ITC Midwest LLC (“ITC”) (the “Utilities”) -- later joined the suit as
`
`intervenor-defendants. Now at the merits stage, the court finds that defendants fail to
`
`meet legal requirements for the Environmental Impact Statement, Compatibility
`
`Determination, and Land Transfer.
`
`BACKGROUND2
`
`As proposed, the CHC project would create a 345-kilovolt electricity transmission
`
`line between 100 and 125 miles long. (ROD004933-34.) As part of the project, a new
`
`electricity substation would also be constructed in Montfort, Wisconsin. (Id.) Intervenor-
`
`defendants Dairyland, ATC, and ITC intend to construct, own and operate the CHC line
`
`jointly. (ROD004940.) Several areas of the proposed CHC project cover existing rights-
`
`
`1 The Driftless area is a region in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. This region was not flattened
`by glaciers like many other areas of the Upper Midwest, leading to a unique geographic region with
`hills, bluffs and valleys. Many species of plant and animal call this region home, such as the Timber
`Rattlesnake, the Northern Monkshood, and the Brook Trout. “Defining the Driftless,”
`https://driftlesswisconsin.com/defining-the-driftless/ (last visited December 30, 2021).
`
`2 Intervenor-defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact (dkt. #113) from
`consideration, as the parties agreed in their preliminary pretrial conference report that proposed
`findings would be unnecessary. (Report (dkt. #40) 13.) Because the court did not rely on any
`parties’ proposed findings of fact for summary judgment, but instead relied directly on the
`administrative record, that motion will be denied as moot, along with plaintiffs’ related motion for
`leave to reply (dkt. #165).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 3 of 45
`
`of-way owned by the Utilities and would also involve replacing or upgrading existing
`
`facilities. (Id.)
`
`Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”), an independent not-
`
`for-profit group which manages the power grid in 15 states, worked with various state
`
`regulators and utility industry stakeholders from 2008 to 2011 to identify projects that
`
`would increase energy transmission and usage of renewable energy. (ROD004981.) One
`
`identified project was to connect Dubuque, Iowa, to southwest Wisconsin, which would
`
`provide cheaper wind power to Milwaukee and Chicago, as well as reduce overloaded power
`
`lines. (ROD031340-41.) This in turn developed into the proposed CHC transmission line
`
`project. (ROD004981.)
`
`Because Dairyland expressed an intent to request funding for its 9% stake in the
`
`CHC project from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”),
`
`that government entity led the effort to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
`
`(“EIS”) in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Fish and Wildlife”), the U.S.
`
`Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
`
`(“EPA”). (ROD004941.) The Utilities also asked (1) Fish and Wildlife for a right of way
`
`easement and special use permit to cross the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
`
`and Fish Refuge (“the Refuge”), and (2) the Corps for permits to build in navigable waters
`
`of the United States. (ROD004942.)
`
`Before granting a right of way through the Refuge, Fish and Wildlife must confirm
`
`that the proposed project comports with the purposes of the Refuge under 16 U.S.C.A.
`
`§ 668dd. Fish and Wildlife originally finalized its “Compatibility Determination for the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 4 of 45
`
`CHC” on December 20, 2019. (ROD007584.) Because the Utilities already had a prior
`
`right of way through the Refuge, where a 161 and 69kv transmission line had been
`
`previously installed (ROD17047) and the Utilities had agreed to transfer back that right
`
`of way (ROD007574), Fish and Wildlife found the proposed CHC line was compatible
`
`with the purposes of the Refuge as “a minor realignment of an existing right-of-way” and
`
`granted a permit to the Utilities. (ROD007574.)
`
`On March 1, 2021, however, the Utilities contacted Fish and Wildlife and asked
`
`for a slightly amended right of way through the Refuge, ostensibly to avoid Ho-Chunk
`
`burial grounds. (Zoppo Decl., Ex. A (dkt. #53-1) 2-3.) Then, before Fish and Wildlife
`
`could issue a decision on the proposed amendment, the Utilities again contacted Fish and
`
`Wildlife on July 29, 2021, this time asking for an expedited land exchange instead of an
`
`amended right of way, ostensibly because approval for a new right of way would take too
`
`long. (Zoppo Decl. (dkt. #53-2) 1.) Specifically, in exchange for a land exchange in the
`
`Refuge, the Utilities were now proposing to transfer a 30-acre parcel to Fish and Wildlife.
`
`(Id.) On August 3, 2021, Fish and Wildlife confirmed receipt of the Utilities’ latest
`
`proposal, indicating that its response to such a land exchange “may” be “favorable.”
`
`(Zoppo Decl. (dkt. #53-3) 1.)
`
`Then, on August 27, 2021, less than a month after Fish and Wildlife responded
`
`favorably to a proposed land transfer, and less than a week before summary judgment
`
`motions were due in this case, Fish and Wildlife “withdrew” its entire original
`
`Compatibility Determination, stating it “learned that an error had previously been made
`
`regarding the 2019 Compatibility Determination when identifying the existing rights-of-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 5 of 45
`
`way proposed for re-alignment.” (Not. by Def. (dkt. #69-1) 1.) As a result, any approved
`
`right of way through the Refuge was rescinded, along with the compatibility determination.
`
`(Id.) However, in its letter of withdrawal to the Utilities, Fish and Wildlife did note that
`
`the agency “is committed to working with you toward timely review of the land exchange
`
`you have proposed in lieu of your March 2021 application for an amended right-of-way
`
`permit . . . [and] concurs that a land exchange is a potentially favorable alternative to a
`
`right-of-way permit.” (Id.)
`
`As for the Corps’ involvement, both its Rock Island and Saint Paul district offices
`
`issued permits, as each office covers a different area of the CHC line. (USACE000094;
`
`USACE000679.) Specifically, the Corps’ Rock Island office is responsible for those
`
`sections of the CHC project running through Iowa and authorized the project under
`
`Nationwide Permit 12 (“NWP 12”). Generally, such nationwide permits (“NWPs”) are
`
`used as a means to expedite permissions to build without needing to go through the more
`
`demanding, individual permitting process. (USACE001200.) Instead, proposed projects
`
`permitted by an NWP only require that the Corps do a project-specific “verification” to
`
`ensure that it meets the requirements of the nationwide permit. (USACE001199.) The
`
`CHC was verified in November of 2019. (USACE001199.) However, NWP 12 was later
`
`revoked by the Corps in part, and now only covers oil and gas pipelines, meaning that
`
`companies building utility lines like the CHC project will need to be permitted under NWP
`
`57. To date, the Utilities have not yet reapplied for an NWP 57 permit. See “Regulatory
`
`Program
`
`&
`
`Permits,”
`
`U.S.
`
`Army
`
`Corps
`
`of
`
`Engineers,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 6 of 45
`
`https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/
`
`Nationwide-Permits/ (last visited Jan. 14, 2022).
`
`In contrast, the Saint Paul district Corps never relied on NWP 12; instead, it issued
`
`a separate permit. (USACE013001.) Specifically, the Saint Paul office issued a Regional
`
`Utility General Permit (“RUGP”), which mirrors NWP 12 for the most part, while applying
`
`to operations in the Saint Paul District that includes the relevant portions of Southwest
`
`Wisconsin. (USACE000730.) The Corps verified the proposed CHC project under the
`
`RUGP in December of 2019 (USACE000679), which is active. (USACE000679.) Various
`
`other state permits have been issued for the CHC project as well, although none of those
`
`are challenged in this case. (USACE000012.)
`
`I. Mootness
`
`OPINION
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) grants judicial review of agency action
`
`to persons “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or
`
`aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of the relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`More specifically, APA § 704 provides that “final agency action for which there is no other
`
`adequate remedy in a court [is] subject to judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Finally, APA
`
`§ 706 grants courts the power to set aside agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C.§706(2)(A), while affording appropriate
`
`deference to administrative decisions.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 7 of 45
`
`Both governmental and intervenor-defendants argue that many of the challenged
`
`actions here are now moot. Specifically, defendants point to the fact that the Fish and
`
`Wildlife’s original Compatibility Determination and issuance of a right of way through the
`
`Refuge have been revoked, while the proposed land transfers have not yet been finalized.
`
`Yet none of these arguments hold up to scrutiny, as the specific facts of this case compel
`
`the court to rule on the challenged permits, as they are certain to have to be revisited by
`
`this court in similar form, except under even more pressing and difficult circumstances.
`
`While this court’s jurisdiction “is limited by Article III to live cases and
`
`controversies,” the doctrine of mootness generally weighs against relinquishing jurisdiction.
`
`Ozinga v. Price, 855 F.3d 730, 734 (7th Cir. 2017). This is particularly true when a party
`
`voluntarily ceases the disputed conduct, rather than face a lawsuit forcing the conduct to
`
`stop. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000).
`
`Thus, the Supreme Court has adopted a “strict” standard in cases of voluntary cessation,
`
`as “[i]t is well settled that ‘a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does
`
`not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.’” Friends
`
`of the Earth, Inc. 528 U.S. at 189 (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S.
`
`283, 289 (1982)). In such cases, the court may only find mootness if “subsequent events
`
`make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be
`
`expected to recur.” Id. (citing United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U.S.
`
`199, 203 (1968)). This burden shifts slightly if: (1) the party voluntarily ceasing an action
`
`is the government; and (2) “a government actor sincerely self-corrects the practice at issue.”
`
`Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Concord Cmty. Sch., 885 F.3d 1038, 1051 (7th Cir.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 8 of 45
`
`2018). In that case, “a court will give this effort weight in its mootness determination,”
`
`although a case may still be “live” if it “cannot give definitive weight to the [government’s]
`
`statements.” Id.
`
`Under the circumstances here, the court cannot help but conclude that any
`
`mootness determination would require a finding of absolute clarity that a return to a
`
`request for a right of way could not reasonably be expected, especially because the Utilities
`
`offer only 30 days’ notice from its reissuance to begin building through the heart of the
`
`Refuge. Even assuming a slightly lower standard applied because Fish and Wildlife is a
`
`governmental body -- albeit one seemingly working hand-in-glove with the Utilities up to
`
`and including suddenly withdrawing the right of way through the Refuge just weeks before
`
`plaintiffs’ challenge was to become ripe for summary judgment consideration by this court
`
`-- the only other alternative is a nearly identical crossing through land transfers approved
`
`by Fish and Wildlife, which will be subject to the same or very similar challenges. Indeed,
`
`there remains no reasonable doubt on this record that both the Utilities and Fish and
`
`Wildlife remain committed to a path through the Refuge (whether by land transfer or a
`
`reissued right of way). Nevertheless, the court will address mootness and standing issues
`
`as to plaintiffs’ principal claims in more detail before turning to the merits of those claims.
`
`A. Compatibility Determination
`
`Plaintiffs’ strongest claim is their challenge to the Fish and Wildlife’s original
`
`Compatibility Determination, which granted the Utilities the original right of way through
`
`the Refuge. However, defendants argue that the withdrawal of the right of way by Fish
`
`and Wildlife renders that claim moot, especially since the Utilities are now planning to
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 9 of 45
`
`seek land transfers with Fish and Wildlife to run through the Refuge instead. (Defs.’ Mot.
`
`(dkt. #93) 45; Not. by Def. (dkt. #69-1) 1.)
`
`As previously explained, the history of the Compatibility Determination and
`
`issuance of the original right of way is a convoluted one, with the Utilities later requesting
`
`an amended right of way and now a land transfer, then Fish and Wildlife withdrawing its
`
`determination altogether, and with it, the existing right of way. Suspiciously, all of these
`
`actions took place in the months after this case was filed. Moreover, in weighing the
`
`likelihood of reoccurrence against Fish and Wildlife’s voluntary cessation, the court finds
`
`that a very similar compatibility determination is not only likely but nearly certain to
`
`reoccur.
`
`In response, defendants contend that the original right of way permit issued in 2020
`
`will never be reissued given the Utilities request for a planned land transfer instead of a
`
`permit. (Defs.’ Mot. (dkt. #93) 46.) That response is thin porridge indeed. While the
`
`Utilities have waffled between seeking another right of way or land transfers, at no point
`
`has Fish and Wildlife or the Utilities suggested that the CHC would not cross the Refuge,
`
`which mean the Utilities’ request for another Compatibility Determination is a near
`
`certainty and its outcome is at least “potentially favorable” for the Utilities. Indeed, the
`
`government’s Final EIS itself acknowledges as much: “[a]ll action alternatives would cross
`
`the Refuge,” and the EIS did not even consider any routes not crossing the Refuge.
`
`(ROD004950.) Instead, the government relied on “the Utilities’ investigation and
`
`assessment of potential Mississippi River crossing locations for the proposed C-HC Project”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 10 of 45
`
`and accepted the Utilities’ own analysis that the CHC must cross the Refuge.
`
`(ROD005006.)
`
`Without even a cursory analysis of non-Refuge crossings beyond the Utilities’ self-
`
`funded research, both defendants and intervenor-defendants have already made their
`
`choice and the CHC transmission line will, by right of way or land transfer, still cross the
`
`Refuge. In fact, the Utilities continue to clear land on both the Iowa and Wisconsin sides
`
`of the Refuge as though its crossing were inevitable. (11/1/21 Op. & Order (dkt. #16) 3.)
`
`Thus, the Utilities must gain access to the Refuge under either of two ways: receive a right
`
`of way through a renewed compatibility determination process or acquire a fee simple title
`
`through land transfers with Fish and Wildlife, which as discussed below raises all the same
`
`concerns as a compatibility study.
`
`Moreover, the fact that Fish and Wildlife is now expecting to review a land transfer
`
`favorably does not mean that a renewed right of way request is in the offing, and as
`
`discussed above, a controversy is not moot unless “it is absolutely clear [that] the allegedly
`
`wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,” which the Supreme Court
`
`has interpreted as an extremely high bar. Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 189 (citing
`
`United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968)) (emphasis
`
`added). For example, when the Governor of Missouri announced that the state was
`
`revoking a challenged policy about grants for religious organizations, the Supreme Court
`
`found that the State still had “not carried the ‘heavy burden’ of making ‘absolutely clear’
`
`that it could not revert to its policy.” Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137
`
`S. Ct. 2012, 2019 n.1 (2017). Similarly, while the Utilities may proceed by land transfer
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 11 of 45
`
`through the Refuge, it is equally as likely that they will have to revert to seeking a right of
`
`way. As such, defendants have not met the heavy burden required to moot plaintiffs’
`
`challenge to the Compatibility Determination.
`
`If the land transfer were to fall through, the government defendants alternatively
`
`contend that the Utilities would be requesting an amended right of way permit, which will
`
`be different than the original request. (Defs.’ Mot. (dkt. #93) 46.) However, an amended
`
`right of way request will not be so different as to moot plaintiffs’ challenge. Indeed, such
`
`a request would have to cover nearly the same acreage within the Refuge, something that
`
`the Utilities are all but assuring as they continue to clear the path for the CHC line up to
`
`the Refuge from both the Iowa and Wisconsin sides even as this lawsuit pends. (Zoppo
`
`Decl., Ex. B (dkt. #53-2) 5.)
`
`In a case involving preferential treatment for city contracts, the Supreme Court held
`
`that similar, minor changes to the repealed conduct cannot moot a case:
`
`There is no mere risk that [the city] will repeat its allegedly
`wrongful conduct; it has already done so. Nor does it matter
`that the new ordinance differs in certain respects from the old
`one. City of Mesquite does not stand for the proposition that it
`is only the possibility that the selfsame statute will be enacted
`that prevents a case from being moot; if that were the rule, a
`defendant could moot a case by repealing the challenged
`statute and replacing it with one that differs only in some
`insignificant respect . . . The new ordinance may disadvantage
`[plaintiffs] to a lesser degree than the old one, but insofar as it
`accords preferential treatment . . . it disadvantages them in the
`same fundamental way.
`
`Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U.S. 656,
`
`662 (1993). Thus, the fact that Fish and Wildlife may grant land transfers or issue a
`
`slightly amended right of way that require less acreage does not change plaintiffs’ main
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 12 of 45
`
`complaint that placement of the CHC line through the Refuge is not compatible with its
`
`purposes.
`
`Finally, while intervenor-defendants assert they are acting in good faith, there is
`
`substantial, contrary evidence in this record. As noted, the Utilities did not ask to amend
`
`their right-of-way permit until after this litigation commenced (Zoppo Decl., Ex. A (dkt.
`
`#53-1) (letter dated March 1, 2021)), and Fish and Wildlife suddenly “discovered” errors
`
`in the Compatibility Determination that warranted withdrawal, which defendants argue
`
`conveniently moots any pending challenges to a Refuge crossing, just a week before opening
`
`briefs on summary judgment were due in this case. (Not. of Withdrawal (dkt. #69).)
`
`Shortly before this, the Utilities suggested a land transfer, which they maintain was only
`
`because it would allow construction to begin faster (Zoppo Decl., Ex. B (dkt. #53-3)), an
`
`option that Fish and Wildlife promptly indicated may be a good option (id., Ex. C).
`
`At the same time, the Utilities have continued construction on the Iowa side of the
`
`line and started construction on the Wisconsin side in October 2021, even as they
`
`maintained passage through the Refuge was uncertain, ignoring that the obvious connector
`
`between the two portions of the line under construction runs straight through the Refuge.
`
`(ROD005063.) In particular, on August 11, 2021, the Utilities requested a stay from the
`
`court pending a possible land transfer, stating that they would not begin work in the Refuge
`
`until October 2022, while offering to give plaintiffs all of “30 days’ notice” before starting
`
`actual construction in the Refuge. (Intervenor-Defs.’ Mot. (dkt. #50) 3.) Then, on
`
`September 24, 2021, the Utilities notified the court that they would start construction in
`
`Wisconsin on October 25, 2021, leaving the Refuge and a few, federal wetlands as the only
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 13 of 45
`
`portion of the line not under construction. (Not. (dkt. #96) 1.) This, despite the fact that
`
`the summary judgment motions in this case would have otherwise been due on November
`
`1, 2021, and the Utilities still did not have a valid right of way or approved land transfer
`
`through the Refuge. (Not. (dkt. #96) 1.)3
`
`Given these facts, plaintiffs contend, and the court finds credible, that the Utilities
`
`are pushing forward with construction on either side of the Refuge, even without an
`
`approved path through the Refuge, in order to make any subsequent challenge to a Refuge
`
`crossing extremely prejudicial to their sunk investment, which will fall on their ratepayers
`
`regardless of completion of the CHC project, along with a guaranteed return on the
`
`Utilities’ investment in the project. Thus, if the court does not treat consideration of the
`
`essentially inevitable re-proposal for a Refuge crossing as ripe for consideration now, the
`
`Utilities will have built up to either side of the Refuge, making entry of a permanent
`
`injunction later all the more costly, not just to the Utilities and their ratepayers, but to the
`
`environment they are altering on an ongoing basis.
`
`B. Land Transfer
`
`Even if the original challenge to the Compatibility Determination were not ripe, a
`
`challenge to land transfer, as the only alternative for crossing the Refuge, would be. Of
`
`course, the intervenor defendants similarly argue that the court cannot yet review the Fish
`
`
`3 Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction to halt construction, and the Utilities again emphasized
`at a court hearing, that they had always planned to begin Wisconsin construction in October 2021.
`(11/22/21 Hr’g Tr. (dkt. #173) 8-14.) Construction is already underway in Iowa, with clearing
`occurring in Wisconsin subject to the court’s preliminary injunction order protecting a few
`designated wetlands. (Id. 9-12.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 14 of 45
`
`and Wildlife’s approval of land transfers, as there is no final decision or record to review.
`
`(Intervenor-Defs.’ Opp’n (dkt. #112) 8.) However, the defendants’ argument is premised
`
`on the likely mistaken assumption that Fish and Wildlife may apply different decision
`
`criteria to the land transfer than the right of way, necessarily leading to the need for the
`
`creation of a new administrative record. In fact, the proposed land exchange would very
`
`likely have to meet the same compatibility requirements of the Refuge Act, making any
`
`analysis done by Fish and Wildlife for the land exchange and the right of way practicably
`
`identical.
`
`Thus, the possible, minor change to the proposed Refuge crossing does not
`
`constitute a sufficient change to moot the agency’s original compatibility analysis, and the
`
`difference between the CHC’s crossing the Refuge by right of way or fee simple title
`
`transfers are negligible where the underlying effect of allowing the crossing is the same. See
`
`Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U.S. 656,
`
`662 (1993) (holding it does not “matter that the new ordinance differs in certain respects
`
`from the old one”). As such, the issue of compatibility -- whether by exchange or by right
`
`of way -- is not only ripe, but the only way to ensure an orderly review of the project under
`
`the National Environmental Protection Act (“NEPA”).
`
`Finally, the Supreme Court has held that the question of whether an agency decision
`
`is “final” depends upon “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to
`
`the parties of withholding court consideration.” Abbott Lab’ys v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136,
`
`149 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). Thus,
`
`“[t]he cases dealing with judicial review of administrative actions have interpreted the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 15 of 45
`
`‘finality’ element in a pragmatic way,” with the Supreme Court finding a statement by the
`
`Federal Communications Commission as reviewable even though “the FCC regulation
`
`could properly be characterized as a statement only of its intentions.” Abbott, 387 U.S.
`
`136 at 149.
`
`Even if Fish and Wildlife does not have to follow the Refuge Act’s compatibility
`
`requirements for a land exchange, Fish and Wildlife’s own, anticipated approval of a land
`
`exchange to proceed with a Refuge crossing and the hardship that a delay in consideration
`
`would cause plaintiffs compels the court to review the proposed crossing now. Specifically,
`
`the letter from Fish and Wildlife stating its concurrence “that a land exchange is a
`
`potentially favorable alternative to a right-of-way permit,” as well as its subsequent
`
`revocation of the original right of way to avoid orderly review, are statements of intent.
`
`(Notice (dkt. #69-1) 1.) In fact, as previously discussed, Fish and Wildlife has created a
`
`situation where a land exchange or similar right of way are the only options left to
`
`defendants, making its statement of intent all but a guarantee, while they continue to
`
`attempt to evade judicial review until any route, other than through the Refuge, would be
`
`so prejudicial that a court would have little choice but to approve the crossing -- creating
`
`the very hardship that the Supreme Court warned against in Abbot. If anything, both the
`
`government defendants and Utilities appear to be playing a shell game, cavalierly revoking
`
`applications for and grants of permits, all as a Refuge crossing becomes a near certainty,
`
`while telling this court that nothing is yet reviewable.
`
`Defendants also fail on public policy grounds. In Abbott, the Supreme Court was
`
`being asked to review a drug labeling regulation where the government similarly argued
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 16 of 45
`
`that reviewing the regulation and halting its enforcement would be harmful to the public
`
`given the importance of proper pharmaceutical labeling. 387 U.S. 136 at 154. In rejecting
`
`this argument, the Supreme Court found that pre-enforcement review would actually speed
`
`up enforcement, as the regulation would either be fully upheld or struck down at once,
`
`despite recognizing that pharmaceutical labeling can have drastic negative effects on
`
`patient health. Id. Here, there is no similar, adverse public safety concern should the court
`
`act now; if anything, pre-enforcement review of the right of way or land transfer only affects
`
`the proposed crossing through the Refuge sought by the Utilities. As such, the government
`
`and Utilities have an even weaker argument for delay than in Abbott.
`
`If this were simply a case of a land transfer, the court may be more inclined to wait
`
`for Fish and Wildlife’s further review. Given the history of this litigation, however,
`
`common sense counsels in favor of proceeding. As previously noted, if the issuance of a
`
`right of way or land transfer is not reviewed at this stage, there is a strong possibility that
`
`the CHC line will be nearly completed in all areas except the Refuge despite its legality
`
`being in substantial question. Defendants tout the land transfer as the reason why
`
`reissuance of the right of way will not occur, but acknowledge that the contemplated land
`
`transfers are uncertain to shield a crossing through the Refuge from review.
`
`Defendants cannot use a possible land exchange as both sword and shield in this
`
`litigation, while the public interest and plaintiffs may suffer substantial hardship by further
`
`delaying judgment day. Even without questioning the governmental defendants’ or the
`
`Utilities’ motives, their proposed “wait and see” method of proceeding amounts to little
`
`more than an orchestrated trainwreck at some later point in this lawsuit. See City of Mesquite
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-00306-wmc Document #: 149 Filed: 01/14/22 Page 17 of 45
`
`v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (“In this case the city’s repeal of the
`
`objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision
`
`if the District Court’s judgment were vacated.”) (citations omitted); Wis. Right to Life, Inc.
`
`v. Barland, 751 F.3d 804, 831 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Friend of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw
`
`Envtl. Servs., Inc. 528 U.S. 167, 190) (“[A] case does not become moot merely because the
`
`defendants have stopped engaging in unlawful activity. ‘[A] defendant claiming that its
`
`voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is
`
`absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to
`
`recur.’”). Given all of the above factors, therefore, the court finds the Compatibility
`
`Determination ripe for review.4
`
`II. Standing
`
`Defendants further contend that plaintiffs have no standing to bring this action. In
`
`order to establish standing, there are three requirements: “First, the plaintiff must have
`
`suffered an injury in fact . . . Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury
`
`and the conduct complained of . . . Third, it must be [redressable].” Lujan v. Defs. of
`
`Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, to
`
`
`4 Plaintiffs also seek to challenge the Corps’ NWP 12 permit, which defendants note is no longer
`operational and has been replaced by NWP 57, altho

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