Northern Plains Resource Council v. Shannon

In addition to dismissing claims brought in both this action and the related action, Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State, No. 4:17-cv-00029, the court decided to hold a NEPA claim against the Bureau of Land Management in abeyance until BLM issued a final decision.

The federal government filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the presidential permit for Keystone XL pipeline. The federal government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review issuance of a presidential permit. The government also argued that claims against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management should be dismissed because there was no final agency action and because the plaintiffs had not alleged standing for their claim under the ESA.

Six environmental organizations challenging the Trump administration’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline in Montana federal court added an Endangered Species Act claim to their complaint. The organizations contended that the federal defendants had not adequately considered the pipeline’s impacts on whooping cranes, interior least terns, and piping plovers, which are listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Six local and national environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana to challenge the U.S. Department of State’s issuance of a presidential permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. The approval of the cross-border permit superseded Secretary of State John Kerry’s denial of the permit in November 2015. The Obama administration had determined that the project was not in the national interest, citing climate change as well as other environmental and health impacts. The groups contended that the environmental impact statement (EIS) completed in 2014 was “inadequate at that time” and was “now woefully out of date.” The complaint alleged that the Department of State had acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from the crude oil the pipeline would convey would be 5–20% higher than previously indicated but had denied the significance of this new information and concluded that the 2014 EIS still reflected expected impacts. Other alleged shortcomings in the environmental review included failure to analyze the combined greenhouse gas impacts of the Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper pipelines and failure to analyze viable clean energy alternatives. The complaint also alleged that the State Department had not discussed what impact the approval of the permit would have on global action to address climate change. The plaintiffs asserted that the State Department had arbitrarily reversed its position on whether the pipeline project was in the national interest. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Secretary of the Interior, and Department of the Interior were included as defendants on the grounds that BLM would soon grant rights-of-way for the pipeline in reliance on the inadequate 2014 EIS.