Sierra Club v. West Virginia DEP

64 F.4th 487

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 2023
• Docket: 22-1008
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 34

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1008

SIERRA CLUB; WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION; WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY; INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION; APPALACHIAN VOICES; CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK,

Petitioners,

v.

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HAROLD WARD, in his official capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,

Respondents,

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC,

Intervenor.

On Petition for Review of a Certification Issuance of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. (FERC Docket No. WQC-2021-005)

Argued: October 25, 2022 Decided: April 3, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition for review granted and certification vacated by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn and Judge Thacker joined. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 34

ARGUED: Derek Owen Teaney, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, INC., Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Petitioners. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. George Peter Sibley, III, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Benjamin A. Luckett, Elizabeth A. Bower, APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, INC., Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Petitioners. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Michael R. Williams, Senior Deputy Solicitor General, Caleb A. Seckman, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. J. Pierce Lamberson, Richmond, Virginia, Deidre G. Duncan, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Washington, D.C.; Robert G. McLusky, Jennifer L. Hughes, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Justin W. Curtis, AQUALAW PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Intervenor.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 34

GREGORY, Chief Judge:

This appeal is the latest installment in a series of challenges to Mountain Valley

Pipeline, LLC’s (“MVP”) plans to build a natural gas pipeline. Because it intends to

construct a portion of the pipeline in West Virginia, MVP obtained a Clean Water Act

(“CWA”) certification from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

(the “Department”). The certification reflected the Department’s conclusion that MVP’s

activities during the pipeline’s construction would not violate the state’s water quality

standards. Disagreeing with that determination, landowners and members of various

environmental organizations in the state (collectively, “Petitioners”) have petitioned for

this Court’s review of the Department’s certification. We find the Department’s

justifications for its conclusions deficient and vacate the certification.

I.

A.

In 2018, MVP began building an approximately 304-mile, forty-two-inch diameter

pipeline. Spanning Virginia and West Virginia, the pipeline is intended to be an essential

conduit for delivering natural gas to markets in the mid-Atlantic, Southeastern, and

Appalachian regions of the United States. Approximately 197 miles of the pipeline will be

constructed in West Virginia, crossing many of the state’s aquatic resources along its path.

Pipelines can cross waterbodies in two ways. One construction method uses

trenchless crossings to conduct conventional boring under waterbodies, which do not

require digging and excavating the soil. MVP will use this method for a portion of its

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 4 of 34

crossings. For most crossings, though, MVP has chosen to trench through waterbodies

using open-cut crossings. The open-cut crossing method allows MVP to “work in the dry.”

As the name suggests, working “in the dry” entails dewatering the streambeds to achieve

dry working conditions. Once dry conditions are established, MVP would excavate

trenches through the streambeds to bury the pipeline beneath the surface. After placing the

pipeline in the trenches, MVP would then backfill the trenches, attempt to restore the

streambeds, and allow normal streamflow to resume.

All told, MVP expects the project to have unavoidable permanent and temporary

impacts on the West Virginia ecosystem. The permanent effects would likely stem from

restoring the pipeline’s right of way, constructing permanent access roads, and installing

culverts along these roads to maintain stream connectivity. MVP represents that these

impacts will be limited to less than a mile of stream channels and less than half-an-acre of

wetland. The project will carry broader temporary impacts to almost four miles of stream

channels and more than eleven-and-a-half acres of wetland due to excavation and

backfilling of trenches as the pipeline crosses wetlands and streams.

Whether temporary or permanent, these activities threaten serious harm in the

absence of proper environmental controls. Some stream crossings require in-stream

blasting, which could “injure or kill aquatic organisms during blast-hole drilling operations,

and temporarily increase stream turbidity.” J.A. 1295. The removal of crossing-

construction infrastructure poses an additional concern that sedimentation may build up

downstream through the introduction of fill material into the water. Unmitigated in-stream

crossing activity could be quite environmentally dangerous given that “[s]edimentation is

4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 5 of 34

responsible for nearly 40 percent of fish imperilment problems” by disrupting their

reproduction and feeding habits. J.A. 1061.

B.

1.

The pipeline project’s success depends on its adherence to a complex regulatory

scheme. The Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) delegates to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (“FERC”) final approval authority for the construction of natural gas pipelines

by authorizing FERC to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity. 15 U.S.C.

§ 717f(c)(1)(A). FERC, in turn, will issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity

only after ensuring that a proposed natural gas pipeline complies with both the NGA and

the National Environmental Policy Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. §§ 717

et seq. MVP procured a certificate of public convenience and necessity in October 2017.

The certificate of public convenience and necessity was MVP’s initial hurdle, but it was

not the only challenge.

2.

Under the NGA, MVP must also obtain “any permits, special use authorizations,

certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be required under Federal law.” Sierra

Club v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 899 F.3d 260, 267 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal citation

and quotations omitted). Because MVP’s waterbody crossings involve the discharge of fill

material into federal waters, the CWA requires MVP to obtain approval from the Army

Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”) before beginning construction. MVP may satisfy that

requirement in one of two ways: by complying with an existing nationwide permit, “which

5 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 6 of 34

acts as a standing authorization for developers to undertake an entire category of activities

deemed to create only minimal environmental impact,” or by acquiring an individual

permit issued on a “case-by-case basis” after a “resource-intensive review.” Crutchfield v.

Cnty. of Hanover, Va., 325 F.3d 211, 214 (4th Cir. 2003).

MVP initially attempted to gain approval to build its pipeline under the scope of the

more generalized Nationwide Permit (“NWP”) 12. Sierra Club v. United States Army

Corps of Eng’rs, 909 F.3d 635, 639–43 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Sierra Club I”). Those who wish

to use NWP 12 for a potential project must submit pre-construction notifications to the

Army Corps and apply for “verifications” that the project would meet the criteria for

operation imposed by NWP 12. Id. at 641. A successful verification under NWP 12 would

excuse a project from the more arduous individual CWA permitting process tailored to

specific projects. See 33 C.F.R. §§ 330.1(b)–(d).

Every CWA permit applicant “shall provide the [Army Corps] a certification from the

State in which the discharge originates or will originate,” unless the state waives its right to

independently certify the project. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1); see also 33 C.F.R. § 325.2(b)(1)(ii).

So, along with the general permitting conditions of NWP 12, MVP had to satisfy any special

conditions imposed by West Virginia. Sierra Club I, 909 F.3d at 640 (citing 33 C.F.R.

§§ 330.4(c)(1)–(2)). On December 22, 2017, the Army Corps issued a verification that MVP’s

pipeline met the criteria of NWP 12, provided that it “compl[ies] with all terms and conditions

of the enclosed material and the enclosed special conditions.” Id. at 641.

However, in Sierra Club I, we held that MVP could not satisfy a special condition of

NWP 12 that large-diameter pipelines, such as this project, possess a state water quality

6 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 7 of 34

certification under CWA Section 401. Id. at 651–55. Although MVP had previously

received a conditional West Virginia water quality certification, the Department later sought

voluntary remand with vacatur of that action. Id. at 641. The Department represented that

“‘the information used to issue the Section 401 Certification needs to be further evaluated

and possibly enhanced’ and that it ‘needs to reconsider its antidegradation analysis in the

Section 401 Certification.’” Id. (citation omitted). Rather than reevaluating the information

on which it based its initial certification, however, the Department purported to waive its

authority to issue an individual certification under Section 401. Id. Accordingly, we vacated

the NWP 12 verification given that there was no dispute that MVP did not possess the

necessary individual state certification. Id. at 648, 652. We noted in conclusion that “an

individual permit [under CWA Section 404] will likely be necessary.” Id. at 655.

In September 2020, after the Department and the Army Corps implemented changes

to the NWP 12 conditions, the Army Corps reissued its verifications of MVP’s

authorization to construct stream crossings under NWP 12. See Sierra Club v. United

States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 981 F.3d 251, 260 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Sierra Club II”). This

Court stayed MVP’s latest NWP 12 verifications on November 9, 2020. After the stay,

MVP began to consider widespread use of trenchless crossing methods, which have proven

to be the least destructive approach for waterbody crossings. MVP asked FERC to amend

its certificate of public convenience and necessity to allow it to use trenchless technologies,

such as conventional boring, to bore under every waterbody along the first seventy-seven

miles of its route, citing our November 9, 2020 stay order as the reason for its proposal.

7 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 8 of 34

Before FERC acted on MVP’s November 2020 application, we issued Sierra Club

II in December 2020 outlining the reasons underlying our decision to stay MVP’s NWP 12

verifications. Thereafter, MVP altered its plans once more, requesting an individual CWA

Section 404 permit from the Army Corps to construct open-cut crossings at most of its

waterbody crossings, and to submit yet another certificate amendment to FERC. Under

MVP’s new plan, it asked the Army Corps to revoke the 2020 NWP 12 verifications and it

withdrew the November 2020 FERC Application. When MVP submitted its new crossing

application to FERC on February 19, 2021, it no longer sought to bore under every

waterbody along the first seventy-seven miles of the route. Instead, the February 2021

application proposed to implement trenchless methods for just three of the thirty-eight

West Virginia crossings it previously sought to bore under.

3.

Now that MVP seeks an individual permit under CWA Section 404 from the Army

Corps, it must receive a certification from West Virginia under Section 401. 1 Although

federal law generally preempts environmental regulation of interstate natural gas pipelines

by states, it “expressly preserves State authority to regulate pipelines under the Clean Water

1 Pursuant to its authority under 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1), the Department previously attempted to waive its own requirement that MVP receive an individual state water quality certification as a part of the NWP 12 process. However, in Sierra Club I, we rejected the Department’s waiver because that action was not taken after public notice and comment. 909 F.3d at 653 (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) (providing that each state “shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all applications for certification by it and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection with specific applications.”)). The Department does not contend that it waived any such requirement with respect to the CWA Section 404 permitting process. 8 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 9 of 34

Act.” Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. N.C. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 990 F.3d 818, 823

(4th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Section 401 of the CWA allows West Virginia to certify,

after notice and comment, its “reasonable assurance” that discharges into waters within the

state will comply with state water quality standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). A Section

404 permit may not be granted if a state denies a Section 401 certification, but if a state

“fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time

(which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification

requirements of this subsection shall be waived.” Id.

The Department administers water quality standards for West Virginia. These water

quality standards list protected water uses and criteria to ensure the appropriate level of

protection. State narrative water quality criteria prohibit discharges that cause or contribute

to sedimentation, solids, and sludge. See W. Va. Code R. § 47-2-3.2.

Recognizing the importance of water quality standards to the CWA’s scheme,

federal law also requires the state’s water quality standards to adopt an antidegradation

policy. See 40 C.F.R. § 131.12; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(4)(B). According to West

Virginia’s antidegradation policy, state waters are divided into three “tiers” of water

quality, each of which is subject to a different standard of review and protections modeled

after the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) federal antidegradation provisions.

Those tiers of review (1) prohibit lowering of water quality in waters already “impaired,”

(2) prevent “significant degradation” in most waters absent a detailed socio-economic

analysis, and (3) allow only a “temporary lowering of water quality” in the most protected

waters. W. Va. Code R. §§ 60-5-4 to -6. For permanent fills that displace portions of

9 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 10 of 34

waters and their corresponding “uses” altogether, the Department ensures compliance with

water quality standards by relying on the Army Corps’ application of the CWA Section

404 permit program to prevent significant degradation to the whole ecosystem. A

component of that program includes mitigation to compensate for the unavoidable losses.

See W. Va. Code R. § 47-5A-3.2.

Additionally, West Virginia subjects the oil and gas industry to its own state general

permit program. The Oil & Gas Construction General Permit (“O&G CGP”) allows in-

stream construction activities so long as they meet water quality standards with the proper

installation of the minimum standards set forth therein. It requires permittees to submit for

review and approval detailed stormwater pollution prevention plans (“SWPPP”). The

SWPPP requires permittees to describe site-specific best management practices (“BMPs”),

including structural controls and vegetative stabilization, designed to “divert flows around

exposed soils, store flows or otherwise limit runoff from exposed areas and eliminate

sediment-laden runoff from the site.” J.A. 1933–36. Permittees must also detail inspection

and maintenance procedures “to identify and address conditions that could cause

breakdowns or failures resulting in discharges of pollutants to surface waters.” J.A. 1932.

In order to be effective, the SWPPP should be revised as necessary to include additional or

modified controls to correct problems.

C.

MVP applied to the Department for an individual Section 401 certification. That

application reflected MVP’s new position that trenchless crossings are impracticable for most

10 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 11 of 34

of the waterbody crossings that it had previously certified to FERC were “well-suited” for

conventional bores. J.A. 1470–74. In defense of the change, MVP explained that

“construction practices have continued to evolve, various costs have changed, and [MVP] has

gained valuable experience with crossings in the terrain crossed by the Project.” J.A. 1384.

Before acting on MVP’s application, the Department solicited public comments.

Opponents to the pipeline project took issue with what they viewed as MVP’s conflicting

positions about the feasibility of trenchless crossings. They claimed that MVP’s flip-

flopping undermined the credibility of its assertions that its proposed open-cut crossings

are the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.

They also raised concerns about violations of multiple water quality standards that

MVP committed while its NWP 12 verifications were in effect. During that time, MVP

completed open-cut crossings on twenty-three streams and nine wetlands in West

Virginia—activities subject to West Virginia’s oil and gas permit programs. Department

inspectors found numerous water quality standards violations at the sites where MVP

conducted work. Among the infractions were repeated failures to properly implement

controls to prevent sediment-laden water from leaving eleven different worksites. MVP’s

construction activities allowed deposits of in-stream sedimentation in addition to other

water quality violations. Based on those violations, the Department brought two

administrative enforcement actions against MVP, resulting in fines. Its opponents argued

that MVP’s history of water quality standards violations precluded the Department from

finding that MVP will not violate water quality standards going forward.

11 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 12 of 34

Despite public concerns, the Department issued a Section 401 certification to MVP

on December 30, 2021. In short, the Department determined that there “is reasonable

assurance that [MVP’s] activity will be conducted in a manner which does not violate

[West Virginia’s] water quality standards” and that “the discharges from the Proposed

Project will comply with [those] water quality standards.” J.A. 2. It observed that MVP

planned to combine “the O&G CGP, enhanced erosion and sediment controls, frequent

[Department] inspections, and the Mitigation Framework,” a six-part plan to “restore

temporary impact sites, react to unplanned impacts, and . . . obtain supplemental mitigation

credits.” J.A. 9–10. In theory, these controls would ensure compliance “with water quality

standards, prevent any significant degradation of regulated waters, restore aquatic habitat

in wetlands and streams, and provide additional compensatory mitigation for the temporary

impacts.” J.A. 10.

Detailing the Department’s rationale, the certification first described MVP’s

sediment-control efforts. The Department looked to EPA for guidance in regulating

stormwater and fill material, drawing from EPA’s CWA Section 402 Construction General

Permit (which applies to stormwater runoff from certain upland construction projects).

Under that permit, EPA “relies on the use of [BMPs] to protect water quality.” J.A. 5.

EPA recommends instituting certain enhanced BMPs, including faster stabilization and

more frequent inspections, to meet federal antidegradation requirements. The Department

concluded that West Virginia’s O&G CGP similarly “relies on engineering controls and

adaptive management processes to control sediment and its constituents.” Id. The

12 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 13 of 34

Department found that “application of these programs to MVP’s [covered] activities will

prevent any significant degradation of water quality or water uses.” Id.

The Department then predicted how it expected MVP would manage permanent and

temporary impacts on the environment. As to permanent effects, “engineering controls

required by [the Department’s] O&G CGP” and “construction plans” MVP submitted to

the Army Corps would “protect water quality from sediment.” Id. The Department also

relied on an assumption that MVP would purchase “mitigation bank credits and in-lieu fee

credits” to restore affected water habitats. Id. For temporary effects, the Department noted

that MVP’s construction activities were “subject to extensive engineering and process

controls described in the plans approved as part of MVP’s O&G CGP registration, its

Section 404 application to [the Army Corps], its request for State 401 water quality

certification, and a supplemental monitoring, restoration, and mitigation plan.” J.A. 7.

In response to public comments, the Department described MVP’s efforts to

conduct “a detailed location-specific review of practicable alternatives to open cut

crossings” and its discussions with MVP about alternatives to those methods. J.A. 55. The

Department affirmed its belief that these methods were sound given its assumption that

MVP will use BMPs, O&G CGP, and SWPPP controls—obviating the need to conduct

additional site-specific antidegradation reviews. While the Department considered

“MVP’s past violations of the O&G CGP,” it did “not agree that . . . [those violations]

demonstrate that discharges from the Project will not comply with water quality standards.”

J.A. 69. Instead, because it viewed the violations as relatively infrequent, the resulting

13 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 14 of 34

environmental harm as minimal, and MVP’s curative responses as diligent, the Department

gave MVP’s violation history little weight in its decision.

Ultimately, the Department imposed thirty-one conditions on the certification. The

Department included these conditions to protect aquatic life and resources, reduce

turbidity, avoid unauthorized discharges, preserve stream stability, ensure proper

monitoring, and mitigate other harms. Absent from the list of conditions is a requirement

that MVP comply with the O&G CGP and SWPPP.

Petitioners appealed the Department’s grant of the certification.

II.

Before we assess Petitioners’ claims, we must address the Department’s contention

that we lack jurisdiction to review the certification. It posits that the certification was not

final when Petitioners filed this action because it was subject to an administrative appeals

process. Consequently, under the Department’s view, our jurisdiction to evaluate its merits

has not yet vested. We disagree.

This Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to review state administrative agency

grants of water quality certifications under the CWA Section 401. See 15 U.S.C.

§ 717r(d)(1). But our jurisdiction attaches only to final agency decisions. “As a general

matter, two conditions must be satisfied for agency action to be final: First, the action must

mark the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process,” meaning that “it must

not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one

by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which ‘legal consequences

14 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 15 of 34

will flow.’” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997) (cleaned up). 2 While an agency

appeals process may render an agency decision not final, the “mere possibility that an

agency might reconsider [its action] . . . does not suffice to make an otherwise final agency

action nonfinal.” Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120, 127 (2012); see also 5 U.S.C. § 704

(providing that agency action is final unless the agency requires an appeal, during which

time the agency action is inoperative).

West Virginia’s regulations allow directly affected persons to “request a hearing

within 15 days after notification of the certification decision.” W. Va. Code. R. § 47-5A-

7.1.a. Petitioners appealed the decision to this Court prior to the end of the fifteen-day

notice period. That much is not in dispute. The Department maintains that Petitioners

leapfrogged West Virginia’s administrative appeals process by filing this appeal before

requesting the hearing provided by West Virginia law or letting the period to do so lapse.

But the Department’s certification was not interlocutory in nature because West

Virginia’s regulations do not provide a meaningful administrative appeals process. For

example, the Department’s Secretary is under no obligation to grant a requested hearing.

Id. § 47-5A-7.1.c (“The Secretary shall decide whether to hold such hearing.”). Nor does

2 Although Bennett decided the issue of finality as contemplated by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Third Circuit has “appl[ied] a federal finality standard to determine whether Congress has made the results of [a state § 401] process reviewable,” seeing “no reason why finality under the [NGA] should be evaluated any differently” than under the APA. Del. Riverkeeper Network v. Sec’y, Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 903 F.3d 65, 72 & n.2 (3d Cir. 2018). As no party questions the Third Circuit’s reasoning, we find it persuasive. 15 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 16 of 34

the Secretary have the duty or explicit authority to stay the certification pending that

hearing.

West Virginia’s process is different from the agency review regulations at issue in

Berkshire Environmental Action Team, Inc. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC,

which the Department cites to support its view. 851 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2017). In Berkshire,

the First Circuit concluded that a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Section 401 certification letter was not final before its effective date. Id. at 112. The court

reasoned that the “substance of the Massachusetts regulatory regime” showed that the

certification was not the final agency decision. Id. Most persuasive to the court was an

administrative appeals process that preserved a challenger’s right to present evidence and

argue against the certification to the agency head, who would not defer to the certification

when evaluating the challenger’s claims. Id.

Critically, the Massachusetts scheme in Berkshire guaranteed “the parties’ rights to

such proceedings when sought,” and “the agency’s review of the proposed project

continue[d] more or less as though no decision has been rendered at all.” Id. By

comparison, West Virginia’s regulations leave the decision to hold a hearing to the

Secretary of the Department’s discretion. When there is no assurance that the

Department’s decision will be reviewed, it “for all practical purposes ‘has ruled

definitively’” on the matter. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., Inc., 578

U.S. 590, 599 (2016) (quoting Sackett, 566 U.S. at 131). At best, West Virginia regulations

provide for the “mere possibility” that the Department could reconsider its Section 401

16 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 17 of 34

certification. But a mere possibility will not strip the Court of its jurisdiction. Sackett, 566

U.S. at 127.

Petitioners did not need to sit on their hands for fifteen days, during which time the

Secretary might have revisited the certification, before petitioning for our review. The

Department’s certification was final on the day it issued. 3 Accordingly, we will address

Petitioners’ arguments.

III.

Moving to the merits, we review a state agency’s CWA Section 401 certification

decision under the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard. See Mountain Valley Pipeline,

LLC, 990 F.3d at 826 (citing Appalachian Voices v. State Water Control Bd., 912 F.3d 746,

753 (4th Cir. 2019)). Under that standard, a court will “set aside agency action, findings,

3 That conclusion is supported by the drafting history of West Virginia’s regulations. The 1999 regulation provided that persons with interests “directly affected by the [Department’s] proposed certification or certification denial . . . may request a hearing within fifteen (15) days after notification of such proposed certification decision.” W. Va. Code R. § 47-5A8.1.a (1999) (emphasis added). That language suggests that before the fifteen-day notice period, the certification letter was not the Department’s final decision. In 2002, the regulations were amended to eliminate references to a “proposed certification.” See W. Va. Code R. § 47-5A-7.1.a (2002) (“[Certain persons] directly affected by the Department’s certification or certification denial, may request a hearing within fifteen (15) days after notification of the certification decision.” (emphasis added)). The elimination of “proposed” indicates that Department certification letters are final upon issuance. A change in regulatory language bears legal consequence particularly in this instance, where an operative word has been removed. See Banker v. Banker, 474 S.E.2d 465, 477 (W. Va. 1996) (“Just as courts are not to eliminate through judicial interpretation words that were purposely included, we are obliged not to add to statutes something the Legislature purposely omitted.”). 17 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 18 of 34

and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise

not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Put differently, an agency violates the

APA if it “relie[s] on factors outside those Congress intended it to consider; failed to

consider an important part of the problem; offered an explanation contradicted by the

evidence before the agency; or ‘is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference

in view on the product of agency expertise.’” Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 990 F.3d at

826 (quoting Defs. of Wildlife v. Dep’t of the Interior, 931 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2019)).

While our “[r]eview under this standard is highly deferential,” Defs. of Wildlife, 931

F.3d at 345, we will not “rubber stamp” an agency’s decision, N.C. Wildlife Fed’n v. N.C.

Dep’t of Transp., 677 F.3d 596, 601 (4th Cir. 2012); see also United States Dep’t of

Interior, 899 F.3d at 270 (“Nevertheless, we must conduct a ‘searching and careful’ review

to determine whether the agency’s decision ‘was based on a consideration of the relevant

factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’”). In short, we “must ensure

that the agency has examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation

for its action.” Defs. of Wildlife, 931 F.3d at 345 (internal quotations omitted).

Petitioners contend that the Department’s Section 401 certification of MVP’s stream

crossing activity should be vacated for five reasons: (1) the Department’s decision ignored

MVP’s history of violating state water regulations; (2) it failed to make compliance with

the O&G CGP and SWPPP a condition of certification; (3) MVP’s plans do not comport

with West Virginia’s BMPs, contrary to the Department’s conclusions; (4) the Department

misconstrued EPA upland construction standards and misapplied those standards in its

18 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 19 of 34

evaluation of MVP’s in-stream construction plans; and (5) the Department did not conduct

location-specific antidegradation review as required by West Virginia regulations. We

evaluate each claim independently.

Turning to Petitioners’ first argument, we find the Department’s reasonable

assurance determination to be arbitrary and capricious because it failed to provide a

reasoned explanation as to why it believes MVP’s past permit violations will not continue

to occur going forward.

The Department’s procedures recognize that an applicant’s “historic noncompliance

with its permit” constitutes a “circumstance[] warrant[ing] . . . review.” W. Va. Code R.

§ 60-5-5.6.a.2. In the face of such a history, it is arbitrary and capricious for an agency to

predict compliance without a rational explanation. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Perdue, 872

F.3d 602, 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017). An agency must “examine[] the relevant data and

articulate[] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between

the facts found and the choice made.” Friends of Buckingham v. State Air Pollution

Control Bd., 947 F.3d 68, 83 (4th Cir. 2020). Record evidence contrary to an agency’s

conclusion requires “further elaboration” and must be “grapple[d] with.” United States

Dep’t of Interior, 899 F.3d at 293.

In its certification, Department assumed MVP’s compliance with its O&G CGP and

SWPPP will ensure compliance with water quality standards going forward. Yet the record

is replete with evidence contrary to the Department’s conclusion. Not only had MVP

violated the O&G CGP 139 times over the course of two years, but Department inspectors

19 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 20 of 34

found that MVP committed at least forty-six narrative water quality standards violations

and assessed civil penalties against MVP for permit and water quality violations totaling

$569,678.

Although the Department acknowledged MVP’s violation history, it failed to dispel

the tension between MVP’s checkered past and its confidence in MVP’s future compliance.

In response to public comments regarding MVP’s history, the Department stated that given

the project’s size and nature and the fact that the Department’s “inspectors monitor the sites

frequently and immediately respond to citizen complaints,” it “does not regard the number

of violations its inspectors issued as surprising.” J.A. 69. In other words, it appears that

the Department simultaneously expects MVP to both violate the O&G CGP because of the

size and nature of the project and comply with the permit’s requirements moving forward

to ensure the applicable water quality standards and antidegradation requirements are met.

The Department cannot have it both ways and the blatant contradiction in its reasoning

leaves its explanation wanting.

The certification itself does nothing to resolve the inconsistency. In its limited

consideration of MVP’s past water quality standards violations, the Department dismissed

the violations as “minor” because “none alleged any significant adverse impacts to the

aquatic ecosystems.” J.A. 9, 69. But the Department was required to declare its reasonable

assurance that MVP’s stream-crossing construction would “be conducted in a manner

which [would] not violate applicable water quality standards.” 40 C.F.R. § 121.2(a)(3)

(2019); see also 40 C.F.R. § 121.7(c) (2020) (requiring that a certifying authority

“determine[] that a the discharge from the proposed project will comply with water quality

20 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 21 of 34

requirements” to grant Section 401 certification). 4 Given West Virginia’s narrative water

quality standards, that means the Department needed to be reasonably assured no violation

of any applicable water standards would occur, not just assured no violation that caused

“significant adverse aquatic impacts” would occur.

“[T]he CWA requires strict compliance with water quality standards,” and water

quality standards “are legally required to be met [at] all times.” National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations, 49 Fed. Reg. 37,998, 38,038 (Sept. 26,

1984) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.41(n), 122.60(h)). And we have previously

recognized that “the CWA creates a regime of strict liability for violations of its standards.”

Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, 412 F.3d 536, 540 (4th Cir. 2005).

Moreover, West Virginia’s narrative water quality criteria prohibit discharges that

cause or contribute to, inter alia, the following:

3.2.a. Distinctly visible floating or settleable solids, suspended solids, scum, foam or oily slicks; . . .

3.2.b. Deposits or sludge banks on the bottom; . . .

3.2.e. Materials in concentrations which are harmful, hazardous or toxic to man, animal or aquatic life; . . .

3.2.i. Any other condition . . .which adversely alters the integrity of the waters of the State, including wetlands; no significant adverse impact to the chemical, physical, hydrologic, or biological components of aquatic ecosystems shall be allowed.

4 Before 2020, EPA required a state agency to find “reasonable assurance that the activity [would] be conducted in a manner which [would] not violate applicable water quality standards.” 40 C.F.R. § 121.2(a)(3) (2019). Although a California district court vacated the 2020 certification regulations, the Supreme Court stayed the vacatur pending appeal, see Louisiana v. Am. Rivers, 142 S. Ct. 1347 (2022). The Department applied both the 2019 and the 2020 standards in its certification decision. J.A. 2. 21 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 22 of 34

W. Va. Code R. §§ 47-2-3.2.a–b, 47-2-3.2.e, 47-2-3.2.i. These standards do not include

any exceptions for violations that do not cause “significant adverse impacts to the aquatic

ecosystem.” J.A. 9.

The Department argues that the final clause in section 3.2.i imports a “significant

adverse impact” element on the rest of the independent criteria in section 3.2.a through

3.2.h. However, that interpretation is logically inconsistent with the Department’s

insistence that none of MVP’s past violations alleged “any significant adverse aquatic

impacts.” J.A. 9. The Department previously cited MVP for numerous violations of

narrative criteria—at least forty-six times—that the Department now claims can only be

violated if there are significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. If there is a

“significant adverse impacts” element in section 3.2.a or section 3.2.b, then the

Department’s claim that there were no significant adverse aquatic impacts runs directly

counter to its previous findings of water quality standards violations. If there is no

“significant adverse impacts” element in section 3.2.a or section 3.2.b, then the Department

applied the wrong legal standard in its reasonable assurance finding by focusing on the

severity of MVP’s water quality standards violations rather than their existence. Again,

the Department cannot have it both ways.

Nor does the certification’s discussion of MVP’s noncompliance history identify

any additional steps MVP certified it would take to ensure there would be no future

violations of water quality standards. And, to the extent the Department claims to rely on

the existence of modified controls, such reliance is unfounded. The Department suggests

in its briefing that “more frequent inspections,” “enhanced practices,” and MVP’s

22 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 23 of 34

“Mitigation Framework” are among the methods MVP “proposed to head off similar

[violations] in the future.” Department’s Resp. Br. at 29.

First, although it is unclear whether the Department means more frequent

inspections by its enforcement staff or self-inspection by MVP, neither entity has actually

committed to conducting more frequent inspections. In 2017, the Department vaguely

committed to conducting inspections “as often as time and resources allow.” J.A. 1684.

The 2021 certification does not mandate more Department inspections, nor does it provide

for additional inspection resources, thereby leaving the Department’s inspection frequency

unchanged from the equivocal commitment in 2017. Likewise, MVP’s 2021 application

shows that MVP’s proposed self-inspections are no more frequent than they were in 2017.

Compare J.A. 81 (“[MVP] will employ enhanced [“BMPs”] for the entire project by

increasing the inspection frequency . . . to within 24 hours after any storm event greater

than 0.25 inches per 24-hour period. These inspections are in addition to the regular site

inspections that will occur at least once every 7 calendar days for disturbed areas and at

least once every 14 days for restored areas.”), with W. Va. Dep’t of Env’t Prot.,

Responsiveness Summary, WV Permit No. WV0116815, Registration Application No.

WVR310667, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, at 77 (Nov. 1, 2017) (“MVP has also

indicated in the SWPPP that the inspection frequency for the entire project will be seven

calendar days and within 24 hours after any storm event of greater than 0.25 inches of rain

per 24-hour period.”). Indeed, MVP actually proposed reducing self-inspection frequency

from once a week to “every 14 days for restored areas.” J.A. 81.

23 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 24 of 34

Second, as for “enhanced practices,” MVP’s 2021 proposals remained unchanged

from its 2016 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan—part of MVP’s SWPPP. The “enhanced

practices” the Department cites are the very practices MVP was already bound to perform

pursuant to its SWPPP and that previously led to repeated water quality violations. 5

Third, MVP argues that it “bolstered the enhanced erosion and sediment controls

and inspections already mandated by the O&G CGP with a state-of-the-art ‘Mitigation

Framework.’” MVP’s Resp. Br. at 2. However, the Mitigation Framework does not bolster

anything. Rather, it merely re-packages the measures already in place. Indeed, the declared

purpose of the Mitigation Framework “is to consolidate the Project’s proposed stream and

wetland monitoring, restoration, and mitigation measures into a comprehensive

framework” because “those measures were dispersed among various existing regulatory

documents and actions proposed in the application and may not have been readily apparent

5 The Department describes “enhanced practices” as MVP’s commitments to do the following: (1) use “[e]nhanced erosion and sediment controls, such as reinforced filtration devices” at crossings at or near Tier 3 or trout streams and “in watersheds with TMDLs”; (2) initiate “[s]tabilization measures . . . as soon as practicable in areas where construction has temporarily or permanently ceased, but in no case more than 7 days after construction has permanently ceased or will not resume within 21 days”; (3) accomplish “seeding and mulching . . . within 4 days in areas that have reached final grade and areas that will not be disturbed for more than 14 days” at stream crossings at or near Tier 3 or trout streams; and (4) immediately install “permanent stream bank stabilization . . . following completion of pipeline installation at each stream crossing.” J.A. 82–83. However, MVP’s 2016 Erosion and Sediment Control plan already required MVP to perform every one of these practices. See id. at 1949 (requiring reinforced filtration devices at Tier 3 and trout streams); Id. at 1954 (requiring stabilization within 7 days after construction completed or Total paused for more than 21 days); Id. at 1955 (requiring seeding and mulching within 4 days of final grade at Tier 3 and trout streams); Id. at 1958 (committing to permanent stream bank stabilization immediately after pipeline installation at each stream crossing); Id. at 2122–23 (2017 amendment requiring “advanced erosion and sediment engineering controls” in TMDL watersheds). 24 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 25 of 34

. . . .” J.A. 128. The only new “voluntary measure” MVP identified in the Mitigation

Framework is the “Supplemental Credit Determination Methodology,” which “provide[s]

voluntary supplemental compensatory mitigation.” Id. at 137. But “compensatory

mitigation” does not assure compliance with water quality standards violations in the first

instance, see W. Va. Code R. § 47-5A-2, and Section 401 was designed to prevent

violations of federal law in the first instance, not mitigate the effects after they occur.

At best, the Mitigation Framework modifies MVP’s obligations after trenches have

been excavated and the pipeline has been put in, but it does not address the “stream and

wetland construction practices” that increase “suspended sediment concentration and

sedimentation” and underlie MVP’s past water quality standards violations. J.A. 22–24,

210. Accordingly, the Mitigation Framework alone cannot justify the Department

discounting MVP’s past sediment-related violations.

None of the Department’s explanations either in this litigation, or—more

importantly—in the certification itself reflect its reasonable assurance that MVP’s past

violations will not be an impediment to its compliance with state water quality standards.

This is not to say that previous violations of water quality standards create a per se bar

against certification. But because the fact of MVP’s compliance runs counter to the actual

record evidence, the Department has a duty to give a reasoned explanation for its continued

reliance on MVP’s compliance with the O&G CGP in the face of MVP’s violation history.

The Department has failed to do so, and that failure was arbitrary and capricious.

25 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 26 of 34

We also agree with Petitioners that the Department’s choice to exclude compliance

with the O&G CGP and SWPPP from its special conditions for certification rendered its

reasonable assurance determination arbitrary and capricious.

The Department repeatedly indicated that its reasonable assurance determination

relied on MVP’s observance of the O&G CGP and SWPPP “to control potential sediment

discharges from the Project to ensure appropriate protection of aquatic resources, water

quality and prevent degradation of State waters.” J.A. 74. And for good reason. West

Virginia’s state level pipeline construction permits provide a battery of environmental

safeguards. The O&G CGP the Department issued to MVP aims “to control discharges of

sediment and other pollutants that may be entrained with sediment so that discharges from

the Project comply with West Virginia’s . . . water quality criteria.” J.A. 56. The SWPPP

provides additional protection “to ensure[ that] ‘stormwater discharges [are] controlled as

necessary to meet applicable water quality standards.’” J.A. 56.

States may certify a project “with or without imposing any additional conditions.”

State Water Control Bd., 898 F.3d at 388. But a state must “set forth any effluent

limitations and other limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any

applicant for a Federal license or permit will comply with . . . any appropriate requirement

of State law.” 33 U.S.C. § 1341(d). The CWA instructs that any necessary limitations and

requirements identified by a state agency “become a condition on” a Section 401

certification. Id.

26 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 27 of 34

The Department understood its obligation to impose those monitoring requirements

and limitations which it felt were necessary to the protection of West Virginia waters. It

incorporated thirty-one in its certification. Inexplicably, it failed to include compliance

with the O&G CGP and SWPPP among the certification conditions, leaving out of the

federal permit a central justification for its reasonable assurance determination. Lacking

an adequate explanation, the Department’s conclusion that the pipeline project will not

violate water quality standards appears wholly unreasonable. See Mountain Valley

Pipeline, LLC, 990 F.3d at 833 (remanding because the agency “did not offer [] any

explanation to reconcile” an obvious internal inconsistency).

Neither MVP’s nor the Department’s post hoc explanations cure this inconsistency.

MVP claims that Special Condition 26, which requires it to implement the Mitigation

Framework, incorporates by reference the O&G CGP and SWPPP into the certification.

The Mitigation Framework is a “six-part plan to assess pre-construction conditions, restore

temporary impact sites, react to any unplanned impacts, and to obtain supplemental

migration credits.” J.A. at 9. The Mitigation Framework, however, describes itself as a

“supplement for temporary impacts associated with” the pipeline and “does not replace the

mitigation that is required for permanent fills.” J.A. 128. What’s more, although the

Mitigation Framework contemplates the assessment of pre-construction baseline

conditions, it primarily addresses post-construction restoration. In other words, the

Mitigation Framework is inadequate to ensure compliance with water quality standards

during trenching and blasting through streams and wetlands during construction.

27 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 28 of 34

The Department’s position fares no better. It argues that including a condition requiring

compliance with the O&G CGP and SWPPP would be redundant because it maintains

independent authority to enforce state regulations. That argument misconstrues the states’

function in the federal water quality regulatory framework. While states play an “essential

role” in “protecting their own waters,” in the context of natural gas pipelines, that role is largely

constrained to the permissive certification process established by the CWA’s implementing

regulations. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 990 F.3d at 823. Beyond an express exemption,

federal law otherwise preempts most state environmental regulation of certain interstate

natural gas pipeline determinations. See AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC v. Smith, 527 F.3d

120, 125–26 (4th Cir. 2008); see also 15 U.S.C. § 717b(d). Thus, the Department’s

certification authority represents West Virginia’s primary opportunity to enshrine

indispensable state permitting protocol into MVP’s federal obligations.

Given the Department’s clear reliance on the O&G CGP and SWPPP to make its

reasonable assurance determination, compliance with those permits should have been a

condition of the certification. That omission was arbitrary and capricious because no

evident justification supports it.

We disagree, however, with Petitioners’ contention that the Department erroneously

concluded that MVP’s in-stream construction plans comply with West Virginia’s BMP

28 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 29 of 34

Manual. 6 Petitioners argue that MVP’s plans fail to comply with two important aspects of

the BMP Manual: (1) MVP’s stream crossing methods diverge from the Manual’s

preference for trenchless crossings without credibly establishing the impracticability of such

crossings, and (2) MVP intends to trench through streams with drainage areas greater than

one square-mile.

West Virginia’s BMP Manual provides “guidance for developing sediment control

plans” for construction activities like MVP’s pipeline project. J.A. 2147. Although the

BMP Manual expresses a preference for trenchless crossing methods, such as drilling

below the surface of the streambed, it acknowledges that alternatives may be appropriate.

When in-stream activity is “unavoidable” the Manual suggests several “dry ditch” methods

“that completely isolate the work area from the stream flow.” J.A. 2176. Still, it recognizes

that there should be a “give and take” for larger streams “where isolation techniques

become difficult or impossible to install” and when in-stream construction “will take an

extended period of time.” Id. In those instances, the Manual emphasizes the use of

“substantial in-stream controls” and “stream diversion.” Id.

MVP changed positions in its applications with the Army Corps regarding the

feasibility of trenchless methods. MVP explained in its Army Corps application that it

6 The Department argues that Petitioners waived this argument by failing to raise it during notice and comment. However, arguments may be considered, even if not raised during the notice and comment period, given the Department’s duty to “fully consider the Pipeline’s potential [water quality effects] before approving it.” Wild Virginia v. United States Forest Serv., 24 F.4th 915, 928 (4th Cir. 2022). In any event, Petitioners’ basic argument at the heart of this issue—that MVP’s stream crossing plans violate West Virginia’s water quality standards—was raised during notice and comment. 29 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 30 of 34

revised its crossing methods due to evolving construction practices and submitted a stream-

by-stream alternatives analysis that explained its crossing methods in its Section 401

application. The Department noted during notice and comment that it engaged in

discussions with MVP and the Army Corps about MVP’s stream-crossing methodology.

J.A. 55. Given MVP’s explanation, MVP’s site-specific review of practicable alternatives

to open cut crossings pursuant to its Army Corps application, and MVP’s commitment to

using dry-ditch techniques, the Department was justified in its confidence that the project

conformed with the BMP Manual.

Following similar reasoning, we disagree with Petitioners that the Department

“entirely failed to evaluate the drainage areas of MVP’s crossings.” Opening Br. at 45–46.

In its discussion of best practices for in-stream construction, the BMP Manual provides

that MVP’s drainage areas “should be no greater than one square mile (640 acres).” J.A.

2177. While the Department did not mention MVP’s drainage areas specifically, its

discussion of MVP’s stream-crossing plans necessarily included every aspect of MVP’s

in-stream construction.

Petitioners concede that an agency may “base its analysis ‘entirely upon information

supplied by the applicant.’” Opening Br. at 44 (quoting Crutchfield, 325 F.3d at 223).

They argue, however, that the Department had an affirmative duty to verify whether the

crossing methods that MVP supplied complied with the BMPs. See Friends of the Earth

v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 835 (9th Cir. 1986). Yet Hintz involved a federal regulation that

conferred an independent duty on the Army Corps to verify the information supplied. Id.

West Virginia Code § 47-5A-4.2, on which Petitioners rely, speaks only to requirements

30 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 31 of 34

of an application for a Section 401 certification; it does not impose any affirmative duties

on the Department. Therefore, the Department was entitled to consider MVP’s alternatives

analysis, its application, and ongoing dialogue with the Army Corps in its determination

that MVP’s crossing methods adhered to the BMP Manual.

4.

Petitioners also argue that the Department erroneously relied on standards EPA has

approved for upland construction in its CGP to support its reasonable assurance

determination that MVP’s in-stream activities would comply with state water quality

regulations. We agree.

The Department justified its decision in part because the “controls” required by

West Virginia’s stormwater permits are “nearly identical” to EPA’s standards for upland

construction. J.A. 5. It appears that the Department relied on EPA’s CGP in part because

it believed that the document applied to in-stream construction. In response to public

comment, the Department included in a footnote its view that “EPA’s CGP and the

agency’s determination of the effectiveness of its requirements extends to both upland and

water crossing activities.” J.A. 65 n.5 (emphasis added).

A state agency may draw confidence “from the EPA’s judgment regarding the

effectiveness of [its] protections in preventing construction from negatively impacting water

quality.” State Water Control Bd., 898 F.3d at 404. But the Department’s reliance on a

demonstrably false impression of that judgment seriously undermines that confidence. See

Friends of Buckingham, 947 F.3d at 92–93. Its notice and comment response about EPA’s

CGP, although just a footnote in the record, betrayed the Department’s ignorance about the

31 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 32 of 34

meaning of that guidance. Thus, the Department’s conclusion that EPA’s CGP applied to the

in-stream context required a more thoroughly reasoned analysis to place beyond doubt that it

had made a rational connection between EPA’s CGP for upland construction and the

certification of MVP’s in-stream construction. See United States Dep’t of Interior, 899 F.3d

at 293 (finding an agency decision devoid of reasonable reflection because it was “not

accompanied by any explanation, let alone a satisfactory one”).

5.

Finally, we agree with Petitioners’ claim that the Department’s failure to conduct

location-specific antidegradation review before it made its reasonable assurance

determination was arbitrary and capricious.

Under federal law, state water quality standards must include an antidegradation

policy, which is “a policy requiring that state standards be sufficient to maintain existing

beneficial uses of navigable waters, preventing their further degradation.” PUD No. 1 of

Jefferson Cnty v. Wash. Dept. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 704 (1994); see also 33 U.S.C.

§ 1313(d)(4)(B). In West Virginia, antidegradation review of activities requiring a Section

401 certification falls under the Department’s discretion. W. Va. Code R. § 60-5-3.8. It is

required only when “[t]he regulated activity is a new or expanded activity that would

significantly degrade water quality.” Id. § 60-5-5.6.a.1. Even then, “[t]he level of review

required will depend on the existing uses of the water segment, the nature of the activity,

and the extent to which existing water quality would be degraded.” Id. § 60-5-1.5a.

West Virginia’s water quality regulations prohibit any activity “that would degrade

(result in a lowering of water quality)” its most protected waters in tier 3, except when the activity

32 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 33 of 34

will cause only “temporary lowering of quality.” W. Va. Code R. § 60-5-6.1. When the state

does not consider temporary sources of pollution a violation of its water quality regulations in

“[e]ven the most protected sources of water,” it is not necessary to conduct a separate

antidegradation review before issuing a Section 401 certification. Appalachian Voices, 912 F.3d

at 757. Because “a temporary lowering of water quality is allowed in the highest quality waters

of the state,” the Department interpreted the “[a]ntidegredation policy as also allowing short-

term, temporary lowering of water quality in Tier 1 and 2 waters.” J.A. 61.

Normally, if we can “discern a rational connection between [the Department’s]

decision-making process and its ultimate decision, we will let its decision stand.”

Crutchfield, 325 F.3d at 218. But the reason the Department decided to forgo location-

specific antidegradation review was that it deemed the O&G CGP, SWPPP, and

certification requirements “sufficient to prevent a lowering of water quality, rendering

individualized Tier 2 and Tier 3 review unnecessary.” J.A. 63. In other words, it relied

upon MVP’s obedience to permitting programs it left out of its conditions on certification

instead of antidegradation review.

Without substantive assurance that MVP will comply with those policies, the

Department’s sanguine outlook is troubling—especially given MVP’s prior violations.

Public comments also put the Department on notice of sedimentation downstream from an

MVP open-cut, dry-ditch crossing in Virginia “nearly 40 months after the completion of

the crossing.” J.A. 1190–92. Not only that, but EPA specifically warned the Army Corps

that MVP’s pipeline project merited some form of antidegradation review. See J.A. 1065.

33 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1008 Doc: 92 Filed: 04/03/2023 Pg: 34 of 34

If MVP follows the protocols set out in, inter alia, the O&G CGP and SWPPP, then

it would be reasonable to conclude that the project threatens to do at most temporary

damage to the quality of West Virginia’s waters. But the O&G CGP and SWPPP retain

uncertain efficacy so long as they are not incorporated as conditions to the certification.

Thus, the Department’s explanation for its decision to forgo location-specific

antidegradation review constitutes an arbitrary application of the discretion afforded by

West Virginia regulations. See Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 990 F.3d at 833

(remanding because the agency “did not offer [] any explanation to reconcile” an obvious

internal inconsistency).

IV.

In sum, the Department’s reasonable assurance determination suffers from four

interrelated failures: It did not (1) sufficiently address MVP’s violation history, (2) include

conditions requiring compliance with the O&G CGP and SWPPP, (3) provide a reasoned

basis for relying on EPA’s upland CGP, or (4) articulate an adequate explanation for

forgoing location-specific antidegradation review. Considering these oversights, the

Department’s conclusion that MVP’s in-stream construction would be conducted in a

manner which will not violate state water standards was arbitrary and capricious.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND CERTIFICATION VACATED