ELR Citation: 50 ELR 20143
No(s). 19-1609 and 19-1610 (6th Cir. Jun 5, 2020)

The Sixth Circuit reversed, 2-1, a district court ruling that required the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to comply with the ESA and NEPA before approving an oil pipeline operator's response plans for addressing the risk of a potential oil spill. A conservation group had argued that the response plans failed to satisfy the enumerated criteria under the CWA, and that PHMSA should have assessed whether the plans complied with the ESA's consultation requirement and NEPA's EIS requirement before approving them. The district court found the plans satisfied the enumerated criteria under the CWA, but granted summary judgment on the grounds that PHMSA did not comply with the ESA and NEPA before approving them. The appellate court found that PHMSA's approval of the plans was nondiscretionary because it was required by statute once a plan satisfied the six enumerated criteria, and thus concluded that the agency did not need to comply with either the ESA's consultation requirement or NEPA's EIS requirement. It therefore reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.