United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn.

Last updated

United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 24, 2020
Decided June 15, 2020
Full case nameUnited States Forest Service, et al., Petitioners, v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, et al.
Docket nos. 18-1584
18-1587
Citations590 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 1837
Case history
PriorCowpasture River Pres. Ass'n v. Forest Serv., 911 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 36 (2019).
Holding
Because the Department of the Interior’s decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the Trail passes into land within the National Park System, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the special use permit.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh; Ginsburg (except Part III–B–2)
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan
Laws applied

United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the permitting of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline under the Appalachian Trail in the George Washington National Forest. At issue were conflicting agencies and laws for those agencies. The permit was issued by United States Forest Service (USFS) which has responsibility of the national forest, while the Trail itself is part of the National Park Service (NPS), and which under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 does not allow any other government agency to issue right of way permits through its lands. In the 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that due to how the NPS was assigned the Trail by the Department of the Interior, it did not transform the lands within the trail to lands of the NPS and were still within the USFS's purview, and thus ruled that the USFS could issue the permit. The case had been consolidated with Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association (Docket 18-1587). [1]

Contents

Background

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline project was a private development by the joint venture of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC of several energy companies to bring natural gas from wells in West Virginia, through Virginia, and then to a terminus in North Carolina and then onto other parts of the U.S. eastern seaboard, with a significant portion of this to be exported to India and Japan. Planning for the pipeline had started in 2013, and has become a high-value project under the Trump administration. [2] The project drew a great deal of opposition from residents in the affected areas, businesses, and environmentalists. Legal actions to block permits and alter the project's plans raised the cost projects from US$5.1 billion to US$8 billion by 2020, and delayed the plan to break ground on the pipeline in late 2017. [3]

Proposed route of the pipeline. The red box marks the approximate location where the pipeline would cross under the Appalachian Trail. AtlanticCoastPipeline map.pdf
Proposed route of the pipeline. The red box marks the approximate location where the pipeline would cross under the Appalachian Trail.

A key right of way permit for the pipeline was for crossing the George Washington National Forest, which covers the Appalachian Mountains along the border of West Virginia and Virginia. The George Washington National Forest was established as a national forest and part of the United States' public lands in 1918, and entrusted to the United States Forest Service (USFS). [4] Via the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and subsequent amendments, agencies like the USFS may issue special use right of way permits for public lands under their authority.

The USFS became involved early in the planning process of the pipeline around April 2015, commenting on early Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the project. The USFS had asserted that the EIS needed to evaluate alternate plans that would not use the national forest, as their policy was to only issued special-use permits on forest lands for cases which "cannot reasonably be accommodated on non-National Forest System lands". [5] Though subsequent draft EIS included two of ten promised alternative routes, the USFS stated they could not assess these until the full evaluation was completed. However, by 2017 with the developer's original deadlines nearing, the USFS told the developers and FERC that they were satisfied with having the two alternatives to allow FERC to issue its final EIS by July 2017, and subsequently, granted the special use permits to the pipeline by January 2018. The permits allowed for about 0.1 miles (0.16 km) of pipeline to pass 600 feet (180 m) under the Appalachian Trail. [5] One of the plaintiffs in the suit, the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that the change in the USFS stance appeared to be tied to Donald Trump taking office and indicate pressure on the USFS by the President to push the project through. [6]

A collation of environmental groups, led by the Cowpasture River Preservation Association and including the Sierra Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Shenandoah Valley Network and the Virginia Wilderness Committee, filed suit against the USFS' action in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in February 2018. The collation argued that the USFS's decision violated its authority under the Mineral Leasing Act and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" under the National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedure Act. [5] The Fourth Circuit ruled on December 13, 2018 against the USFS and vacated the special use permit. The three-judge court unanimously agreed that the USFS's decision to grant the permit "is particularly informed by the Forest Service's serious environmental concerns that were suddenly, and mysteriously, assuaged in time to meet a private pipeline company's deadlines". [6] The court further ruled that the USFS did not have the authority over the land use of the Appalachian Trail, which by the National Trails System Act of 1968 had been designed as a National Park by the United States Department of the Interior under authority of the National Park Service (NPS), and which the amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, were exempted from being granted for use for right-of-way permits under 30 U.S.C.   § 185(b)(1) . [6] [5] The court also ruled on two other points, asserting that the USFS permit failed to account for mandatory environmental regulations to protect the land and ecology, and that the permitting did not perform enough evaluation of the risk related to landslides and erosion due to the steep lands in the area. [7] The decision of the court was noted to end with a quote from The Lorax : "We trust the United States Forest Service to 'speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.'" [6]

Supreme Court

Both the USFS and the project developers petitioned the Fourth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court specifically on the USFS's authority to issue the special use permit for lands covered by the Appalachian Trail. They expressed concern that the Fourth Circuit's decision related to the Appalachian Trail "has effectively erected a 2,200-mile barrier severing the eastern seaboard from oil and gas sources west of the Appalachian Trail". [8] Both petitions asked the Court to review whether the USFS does have the ability to issue right of way special use permits for the lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail. The Supreme Court certified the case in October 2019. [8] Oral arguments were heard on February 24, 2020. The arguments examined what ramifications the Fourth Circuit's decision would have if it were held, that many numerous pipelines and similar projects had already been built to cross the Appalachian Trail before it was established as a national park in 1968, and how the concept of "land" versus "right of way" could be reconciled between the USFS and NPS's oversight in this area. [9]

The Court's decision was issued on June 15, 2020. In the 7–2 decision, the court ruled that under the National Trails System Act, the Appalachian Trail was established as a right of way through the national forest, established through agreements between the Department of the Interior and the USFS, and did not transform that land into national park land. Therefore, the land the Trail occupies remains as land within the jurisdiction of USFS, and thus they were empowered to issue the special use permit under the Mineral Leasing Act. [7] [10]

The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. He summarized the judgement, "The lands that the trail crosses are still 'federal lands' and the Forest Service may grant a pipeline right of way through them — just as it granted a right of way for the trail. Sometimes a complicated regulatory scheme may cause us to miss the forest for the trees. But at bottom, these cases boil down to a simple proposition: A trail is a trail, and land is land." [7]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Sotomayor stated the majority decision was "inconsistent with the language of three statutes, long-standing agency practice, and common sense", and that "Only Congress, not this court, should change that mandate [of permitting pipelines across federally-owned lands]". [7]

The Supreme Court decision reversed the Fourth Circuit's judgement and remanded the case for review. The decision only addressed the question of the USFS's ability to issue permits, and did not touch on the three other factors from the Fourth Circuit's opinion: that the USFS's permit did not comply with mandatory standards for protecting the environment, that the evaluation did not properly evaluate soil and erosion concerns, and whether the USFS's decision to issue the permits were arbitrary and capricious. [7]

Aftermath

On July 5, 2020, the companies seeking to build the pipeline announced they had canceled the project due to other lingering legal challenges raised by opponents of the project, unrelated to the right of way permit at the center of this case. [11] [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Forest Service</span> Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

The United States Forest Service (USFS) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that administers the nation's 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands covering 193 million acres (780,000 km2) of land. The major divisions of the agency are the Chief's Office, National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, Business Operations, as well as Research and Development. The agency manages about 25% of federal lands and is the sole major national land management agency not part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Energy Regulatory Commission</span> Independent agency of the United States federal government

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the independent agency of the United States government that regulates the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce and regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce. FERC also reviews proposals to build interstate natural gas pipelines, natural gas storage projects, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, in addition to licensing non-federal hydropower projects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Point Reyes National Seashore</span> Park preserve in California, United States

Point Reyes National Seashore is a 71,028-acre (287.44 km2) park preserve located on the Point Reyes Peninsula in Marin County, California. As a national seashore, it is maintained by the US National Park Service as an important nature preserve. Some existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue within the park. Clem Miller, a US Congressman from Marin County, wrote and introduced the bill for the establishment of Point Reyes National Seashore in 1962 to protect the peninsula from development which was proposed at the time for the slopes above Drake's Bay.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Environmental Policy Act</span> United States federal environmental law (enacted 1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment". An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS. Several U.S. state governments require that a document similar to an EIS be submitted to the state for certain actions. For example, in California, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be submitted to the state for certain actions, as described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One of the primary authors of the act is Lynton K. Caldwell.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black-tailed deer</span> Subspecies of deer

Two forms of black-tailed deer or blacktail deer that occupy coastal woodlands in the Pacific Northwest of North America are subspecies of the mule deer. They have sometimes been treated as a species, but virtually all recent authorities maintain they are subspecies.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974(RPA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq.) is a United States federal law which authorizes long-range planning by the United States Forest Service to protect, develop, and enhance the productivity and other values of forest resources. RPA requires that a renewable resource assessment and a Forest Service plan be prepared every ten and five years, respectively, to plan and prepare for the future of natural resources. RPA was reorganized, expanded, and otherwise amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Wilderness Act of 1984</span>

The California Wilderness Act of 1984 is a federal law, passed by the United States Congress on September 28, 1984, that authorized the addition of over 3 million acres (12,000 km2) within the state of California to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Conservation activist George Whitmore later credited the Act with establishing "the longest stretch of de facto wilderness in the lower 48 states."

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake. The case addressed tailings from the Kensington mine, an underground mine located in Alaska. The gold mine had not operated since 1928, and Coeur Alaska obtained a permit in 2005 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to dispose of up to 4.5 million tons of tailings in Lower Slate Lake, which is located in a National Forest.

Union Hill is an unincorporated community in Buckingham County, Virginia, that was founded by freed slaves after the American Civil War.

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case in which the Court ruled on the applicability of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. This area, also known as the High Country, was used by the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes as a religious site.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

Rosemont Copper is a proposed large open pit copper mine project by the Canadian mining corporation Hudbay Minerals. The project site is located within the Santa Rita Mountains and Coronado National Forest, in Pima County of southern Arizona. It has undergone a permitting review process under the direction of the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has been delayed by legal judgements and suspension of its operating permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.

California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing the question of whether United States Forest Service regulations, federal land use statutes and regulations, or the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, preempt the California Coastal Commission's imposition of a permit requirement on operation of an unpatented mining claim in a national forest. The court ruled that even if federal land is not included in the Coastal Zone Management Act's interpretation of "coastal zone," the act does not automatically preempt all state regulation of activities on federal lands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Atlantic Coast Pipeline</span>

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline was a planned natural gas pipeline slated to run 600 miles (970 km) from West Virginia, through Virginia, to eastern North Carolina. It was canceled in July 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mountain Valley Pipeline</span> Natural gas pipeline in the United States

The Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is a natural gas pipeline being constructed from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia. The MVP will be 304 miles (489 km) long, and there is also a proposed Southgate Extension which will run 75 miles (121 km) from Virginia into North Carolina. The completed pipeline will have a capacity of 2 million dekatherms (Dts) of natural gas per day, with a large quantity of that gas being produced from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) is the largest 501(c)(3) environmental nonprofit organization in the southeastern United States, with more than 100 attorneys and 200 staff members overall working at the local, state, and federal level. Headquartered in Charlottesville, Virginia, SELC has nine offices in six states: Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. The organization also has an office on Capitol Hill.

Equitrans Midstream Corporation, also known as E-Train, is an American energy company engaged in the pipeline transportion of natural gas and natural gas liquids. It is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

References

  1. ↑ United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn., 590 U.S. ___ (2020)
  2. ↑ DiSavino, Scott; Kelly, Stephanie (October 9, 2019). "Trump's fast-tracking of oil pipelines hits legal roadblocks". Reuters . Retrieved June 24, 2020.
  3. ↑ "Long-awaited draft environmental statement on Dominion's Atlantic Coast Pipeline released". Richmond Times-Dispatch. December 30, 2017. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
  4. ↑ Davis, Richard C. (September 29, 2005). "The National Forests of the United States" (PDF). The Forest History Society. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 5, 2009. Retrieved January 18, 2009.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Ferreras, Jesse (December 15, 2018). "U.S. court strikes down pipeline's approval with help from Dr. Seuss' 'The Lorax'". Global News . Retrieved June 24, 2020.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Wamsley, Laura (December 14, 2018). "Quoting 'The Lorax,' Court Pulls Permit For Pipeline Crossing Appalachian Trail". NPR . Retrieved June 24, 2020.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Barnes, Robert (June 15, 2020). "Supreme Court removes major obstacle to Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a long-delayed project crossing central Virginia". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 24, 2020.
  8. 1 2 Stohr, Greg (October 4, 2019). "Dominion's Atlantic Coast Gas Pipeline Gets High Court Hearing". Bloomberg News . Retrieved June 24, 2020.
  9. ↑ Lavoie, Denise (February 24, 2020). "Supreme Court hears battle over Atlantic Coast Pipeline". Associated Press . Retrieved June 24, 2020.
  10. ↑ Sullivan, Becky; Wamsley, Laurel (June 15, 2020). "Supreme Court Says Pipeline May Cross Underneath Appalachian Trail". NPR . Retrieved June 24, 2020.
  11. ↑ Bowden, John (July 5, 2020). "Energy companies cancel Atlantic Coast Pipeline". The Hill . Retrieved July 5, 2020.
  12. ↑ Rankin, Sarah (July 5, 2020). "Developers cancel long-delayed, $8B Atlantic Coast Pipeline". Associated Press . Retrieved July 5, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.