Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv.
| Citation | 897 F.3d 582 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-1036, No. 18-1012,No. 17-2399, No. 18-1019,17-2399 |
| Parties | SIERRA CLUB, INC.; Appalachian Voices; Wild Virginia, Inc., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United States Department of Agriculture, Respondents, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Intervenor. Cherokee Forest Voices ; The Clinch Coalition; Georgia Forestwatch ; Mountaintrue, Amici Supporting Petitioner. The Wilderness Society; Preserve Craig, Inc.; Save Monroe, Inc., Petitioners, v. United States Forest Service; United States Department of Agriculture, Respondents, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Intervenor. Sierra Club, Inc.; Appalachian Voices; Wild Virginia, Inc., Petitioners, v. United States Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Land Management; United States Forest Service; United States Department of Agriculture, Respondents, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Intervenor. Cherokee Forest Voices ; The Clinch Coalition; Georgia Forestwatch ; Mountaintrue, Amici Supporting Petitioner. The Wilderness Society; Preserve Craig, Inc.; Save Monroe, Inc., Petitioners, v. United States Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Land Management; United States Forest Service; United States Department of Agriculture, Respondents, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Intervenor. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
ARGUED: Nathan Matthews, SIERRA CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM, Oakland, California, for Petitioners. Kevin William McArdle, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. George Peter Sibley, III, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Elizabeth Fay Benson, SIERRA CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM, Oakland, California, for Petitioners Sierra Club, Wild Virginia, and Appalachian Voices. Tammy L. Belinsky, Copper Hill, Virginia, for Petitioners The Wilderness Society, Preserve Craig, and Save Monroe. Jeffrey H. Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, J. David Gunter II, Emily A. Polachek, Environment & Natural Resources Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; John Henson, Haninah Levine, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C.; Jay McWhirter, Sarah Kathmann, Office of the General Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Kevin S. Elliker, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Thomas C. Jensen, Washington, D.C., Murray D. Feldman, Boise, Idaho, Sandra A. Snodgrass, HOLLAND & HART LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Intervenor. J. Patrick Hunter, Austin D. Gerken, Jr., Amelia Y. Burnette, Asheville, North Carolina; Gregory Buppert, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Amici Curiae.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petitions granted, vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Traxler joined.
In this case, we address petitions seeking review of two federal agency decisions. The first is the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM")’s decision granting a right of way through federal land for construction and operation of a pipeline proposed by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC ("MVP"). The second is the United States Forest Service ("Forest Service")’s decision to amend the Jefferson National Forest Land Resource Management Plan to accommodate the right of way and pipeline construction. Sierra Club, Inc.; Appalachian Voices; Wild Virginia, Inc.; the Wilderness Society; Preserve Craig, Inc.; and Save Monroe, Inc. (collectively, "Petitioners") claim that by these decisions, the federal agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Mineral Leasing Act ("MLA"), and the National Forest Management Act ("NFMA").
After careful review, we conclude that aspects of the Forest Service’s decision fail to comply with NEPA and the NFMA. As more fully explained below, we grant the petition challenging the Forest Service’s decision and vacate that decision. We also conclude that the BLM failed to acknowledge its obligations under the MLA, and therefore, we also grant the petition challenging the BLM decision and vacate that decision. We remand to the respective agencies for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MVP plans to construct, operate, and maintain approximately 303.5 miles of new underground, 42-inch diameter pipeline extending from Wetzel County, West Virginia, to Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The trench for the pipeline will be at least 54 inches wide and 5.5 to 9 feet deep. Construction will involve "remov[ing] trees, shrubs, brush, roots, and large rocks" and will initially require a 75-foot to 125-foot right of way for construction purposes, and a subsequent 50-foot right of way for at least 30 years to accommodate the pipeline’s operation. J.A. 102–03, 107.1
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for MVP’s pipeline project ("Certificate"). Pursuant to the Natural Gas Act ("NGA"), a natural gas company is not permitted to undertake construction of a pipeline unless FERC first issues a Certificate authorizing such construction. See 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c)(1)(A). Before doing so, in most cases FERC "shall set the matter for hearing and shall give such reasonable notice of the hearing thereon to all interested persons as in its judgment may be necessary under [FERC’s] rules and regulations." Id . § 717f(c)(1)(B). FERC also "shall have the power to attach to the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the public convenience and necessity may require." Id . § 717f(e). Petitioners do not challenge FERC’s issuance of the Certificate in this case.
FERC was also required to issue an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS").2 Pursuant to NEPA, when a federal agency proposes to take a "major Federal action[ ] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," the agency must prepare a detailed EIS describing the likely environmental effects, "adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided," and potential alternatives to the proposal. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). Multiple agencies may cooperate to issue an EIS, but a "lead agency" is usually designated. 7 C.F.R. § 3407.11(a).3 Where an interstate gas pipeline is involved, FERC acts as the lead NEPA agency. See 15 U.S.C. § 717n(b)(1) ; see also EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC , 828 F.3d 949, 953 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Here, the BLM and the Forest Service served as cooperating agencies and ultimately adopted the EIS.
It is not enough, however, that FERC issued a Certificate and an EIS. Because portions of the proposed pipeline route cross federally owned lands, MVP was also required to obtain rights of way and temporary use permits from the federal government to construct and operate the pipeline on those lands. The proposed right of way will cross land managed by two different agencies—the Forest Service (3.6 miles or approximately 83 acres of the Jefferson National Forest in West Virginia and Virginia) and the Army Corps of Engineers (60 feet of the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail in Braxton County, West Virginia)—which means the Department of the Interior is responsible for issuing rights of way and attendant permits. See 30 U.S.C. § 185(c)(2) (). In situations involving oil and gas pipeline rights of way, the Department of the Interior has delegated that authority to the BLM. See 36 C.F.R. § 251.54(b)(3). Importantly, the BLM must have the concurrence of the Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers in order to grant the necessary rights of way or permits. See 30 U.S.C. § 185(c)(2) ; 43 C.F.R. § 2884.26.4
On December 20, 2017—upon review of the pertinent regulations, FERC’s EIS, and public comments, and with the concurrence of the Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers—the BLM issued a Rule of Decision ("ROD") granting a 30 year, 50-foot operational right of way and associated temporary use permits across 3.6 miles of the Jefferson National Forest. The BLM explicitly adopted the EIS and "prepared th[e] ROD based on information contained" therein. J.A. 574.
In addition to the Certificate, EIS, and right of way, MVP was also required to ensure compliance with a Land Resource Management Plan governing the Jefferson National Forest (the "Jefferson Forest Plan"). Pursuant to the NFMA, any plans, permits, or contracts for use of the Jefferson National Forest "shall be consistent with" the Jefferson Forest Plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). Here, it is undisputed that the pipeline project, as proposed, is not consistent with certain aspects of that plan. See J.A. 1280 (). In such a case, the Forest Service has four options:
(1) modify the proposed project to make it consistent with the Forest Plan; (2) reject the proposal; (3) amend the Forest Plan so that the project would be consistent with the plan as amended; or (4) amend the Forest Plan simultaneously with the approval of the project so the project would be consistent with the plan as amended[.] [Such amendments] may be limited to apply only to the project.
J.A. 1271 (). In its ROD...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. Wender
...lands and remanded to those agencies to address the issues identified in the appellate court's decision. See Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018). On August 3, 2018, in response to the Fourth Circuit's decision, FERC notified Mountain Valley that it must ceas......
-
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
...We accord no deference to an agency’s "improper interpretation of a decidedly unambiguous regulation." Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv. , 897 F.3d 582, 602–03 (4th Cir. 2018). Therefore, Special Condition 6 cannot constitute a "further condition or restrict[ion]" under 33 C.F.R. § ......
-
Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n v. Forest Serv.
...act is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.’ " Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 897 F.3d 582, 589–90 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ). An agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious if:the agency relied on fa......
-
In re Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co.
...P 81. [256] See supra note 261. [257] Final EIS at 3-3. [258] Id. at ES-15. [259] NJCF Rehearing Request at 43; Riverkeeper at 16-17; Sierra Club at 10-11. [260] Theodore Conservation P'ship, 661 F.3d at 73-74. [261] See Riverkeeper Rehearing Request at 18, 20-22; Sierra Club Rehearing Requ......
-
How Environmental Litigation Has Turned Pipelines Into Pipe Dreams
...§1502.14 (2012). 214. Cowpasture , 911 F.3d at 170. 215. 40 C.F.R. §1506.3(a) (2012). 216. See Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582, 594 (4th Cir. 2018). 217. Cowpasture , 911 F.3d at 170. 218. Id . at 171. 219. Id . then reversed course, however, and adopted the inal EIS de......
-
Chapter 4 Forest Planning: Shifting Ecological and Legal Bases for National Forest Management
...See 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(c)(4) (2021) (allowing for plan amendments to bring projects into compliance with plan standards). [101] 897 F.3d 582, 602 (4th Cir. 2018).[102] Wild Va., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2313, at *13. [103] Id. at *14.[104] Id. at *29-30 (quoting 36 C.F.R. § 219.8(a)(1))[105] 77......
-
REGULATORY REFORM: CURRENT PERSPECTIVES
...(9th Cir. 2018); Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, 887 F.3d 637 (4 Cir. 2018).[26] 26. Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Service, 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018); Sierra Club v. Department of Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4 Cir. 2018). Updates are available at "Scotusblog," see http://www.s......
-
TOWARD A ROLE FOR PROTEST IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.
...lacked authority to allow the MVP to proceed with construction under terms of nationwide permit); Sierra Club, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582, 602-03 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that the Forest Service failed to comply with the NEPA and other statutory mandates in allowing pipeline co......