Court Opinion

ID: 9384760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 21:01:07.351624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.263060
License: Public Domain

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.

                                                     1.

               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

                                                     2.

               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.

                                                      A.

               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).

                                                      B.

               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.

                                                      1.

               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

                                                     2.

               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.

                                                         3.

               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

                                                      34