Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SIERRA CLUB; Virginia Wilderness Committee, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; National Park Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior; Ryan Zinke, in his official capacity Secretary of the Department of the Interior; Michael T. Reynolds, in his official capacity as Deputy Director, Operations, Exercising the Authority of Director; Stan Austin, in his official capacity as Southeast Regional Director, Responsible Official, Respondents,
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, Intervenor. Defenders of Wildlife; Sierra Club; Virginia Wilderness Committee, Petitioners, v. United States Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior; Ryan Zinke, in his official capacity Secretary of the Department of the Interior; Greg Sheehan, in his official capacity as Principal Deputy Director; Cindy Schulz, in her official capacity as Field Supervisor, Virginia Ecological Services, Responsible Official, Respondents, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, Intervenor.
ORDER
Petitioners seek review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Incidental Take Statement, which authorized the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project to take certain threatened or endangered species. As to five of the affected species, Petitioners argue that the agency failed to set clear limits on take as required by the Endangered Species Act.
Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1), we conclude, for reasons to be more fully explained in a forthcoming opinion, that the limits set by the agency are so indeterminate that they undermine the Incidental Take Statement's enforcement and monitoring function under the Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, we VACATE the Fish and Wildlife Service's Incidental Take Statement. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). We reserve judgment on the parties’ remaining disputes until our forthcoming opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1082, No. 18-1083
Decided: May 15, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)