UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ APPALACHIAN VOICES; SIERRA CLUB, │ Petitioners, │ │ v. │ No. 24-3831 > │ UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al., │ Respondents, │ │ │ TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, │ Intervenor. │ ┘

On Petition for Review of a Department of Army Permit; No. LRN-2021-0866.

Argued: December 10, 2024

Decided and Filed: April 4, 2025

Before: MOORE, CLAY, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Derek O. Teaney, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Petitioners. Rebecca Jaffe, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. David A. Super, BRACEWELL LLP, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Derek O. Teaney, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, Lewisburg, West Virginia, James S. Whitlock, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Asheville, North Carolina, O.W. “Trey” Bussey, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Nashville, Tennessee, for Petitioners. Rebecca Jaffe, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. David A. Super, Ann D. Navaro, Kevin A. Ewing, BRACEWELL LLP, Washington, D.C., Scott Burnett Smith, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Huntsville, Alabama, for Intervenor. David D. Ayliffe, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Amicus Curiae. No. 24-3831 Appalachian Voices, et al. v. U.S. Army Page 2 Corps of Eng’rs, et al.

_________________

OPINION _________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Appalachian Voices and Sierra Club (collectively “Petitioners”) petition for review of Respondent United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (the “Corps”) decision to issue a permit to Intervenor-Respondent Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (“TGP”) pursuant to § 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1344, for TGP’s proposed Cumberland Pipeline (the “Pipeline”). Petitioners, environmental groups with members who live nearby or utilize areas within the Pipeline’s proposed path, seek to vacate the § 404 permit, arguing that the Corps violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., in approving TGP’s permit application. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the petition for review.

I. BACKGROUND

TGP’s proposed pipeline would transport natural gas across several Tennessee counties along a 32-mile path crossing rocky terrain and more than one hundred bodies of water. The dispute underlying the Petition for Review concerns the Corps’ issuance of a permit allowing TGP to discharge certain materials in bodies of water while constructing and operating the Pipeline. Petitioners, who represent individuals who claim they may be negatively impacted by the Pipeline, argue that the Corps failed to comply with federal law in issuing the permit. Respondents disagree with Petitioners’ arguments. In the di