## Facts

- A private developer proposed a 600+ mile natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to North Carolina, including about 21 miles crossing the George Washington and Monongahela National Forests and passing under the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) within the George Washington National Forest.
- Construction would require tree clearing in a wide right-of-way, blasting and grading ridgelines, and excavation to bury a large-diameter pipeline; long-term operations would maintain a cleared right-of-way for the life of the project.
- The developer sought a FERC certificate and Forest Service authorizations, including a special use permit and right-of-way across national forest lands and across the ANST.
- NEPA review proceeded through a FERC environmental impact statement (EIS), with the Forest Service participating as a cooperating agency.
- The Forest Service issued a Record of Decision approving the project on national forest lands, amended applicable forest plans, and issued the special use permit and right-of-way.
- Environmental and local organizations petitioned for direct review under the Natural Gas Act, challenging the Record of Decision, the permit, and the forest plan amendments.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service’s forest plan amendments and project authorization complied with NFMA and applicable plan standards for resources such as soil, water, and species.
2. Whether the Forest Service complied with NEPA by taking a hard look at environmental risks (including landslides and sedimentation) and reasonable alternatives, while relying on the FERC EIS.
3. Whether the Forest Service had authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant a pipeline right-of-way where the route crosses the ANST.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for review, vacated the Record of Decision and special use permit, and remanded to the Forest Service.
- The court held the Forest Service violated NFMA by approving plan amendments and project consistency determinations that failed to satisfy governing forest plan requirements and were inadequately explained in light of earlier agency technical concerns.
- The court held the Forest Service violated NEPA by relying on environmental analysis that did not adequately evaluate steep-slope and landslide risks, sedimentation and water-quality effects, and route alternatives that would avoid national forest lands.
- The court held the Forest Service lacked statutory authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant a right-of-way across the ANST because it treated the Trail as land within the National Park System, which the MLA excludes from such grants.

## Legal Principles

- NFMA requires site-specific approvals on national forest lands to be consistent with governing forest plans; unexplained departures from prior technical conclusions can render agency action arbitrary and capricious under APA review principles.
- NEPA requires an agency to take a hard look at environmental consequences and reasonable alternatives; a cooperating agency may rely on an EIS only if the analysis adequately addresses the relevant risks and alternatives within the agency’s decision space.
- The Mineral Leasing Act authorizes pipeline rights-of-way across federal lands but excludes lands in the National Park System from such grants; an agency acts outside its statutory authority when it issues a right-of-way that the statute does not permit.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit set aside the Forest Service’s national-forest approvals for the pipeline, concluding that the agency’s NFMA consistency and NEPA hard-look obligations were not met and that the agency lacked Mineral Leasing Act authority, as construed by the panel, to grant a right-of-way where the project crossed the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.


Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 911 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2018)