- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Department of Interior
Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Department of Interior
Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Department of Interior ↗
20-2159United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (4th Cir.)7 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
04/01/2022
Petition for rehearing en banc denied.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied intervenor-defendant Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC’s petition for rehearing en banc of the court’s February 3, 2022 decision vacating a biological opinion and incidental take statement for the Mountain Valley Pipeline due to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s failure to adequately evaluate climate change impacts on two endangered species of fish. The intervenor-defendant argued that the panel misapplied the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review and improperly substituted its judgment for the agency’s in evaluating potential effects of climate change.
Decision
03/11/2022
Petition for rehearing en banc filed by defendant-intervenor.
Petition For Rehearing
02/03/2022
Biological opinion and incidental take statement vacated.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) 2020 biological opinion and incidental take statement for the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The court found that the FWS failed to adequately evaluate the impacts of climate change on two endangered fish, the Roanoke logperch and candy darter. Although the court stated that it was “not clear” whether the FWS should consider climate change “as part of the environmental-baseline analysis, the cumulative-effects analysis, or both,” the court concluded that in this case “it makes no difference” because the FWS did not properly evaluate climate change at all. The court noted that there was only one sentence discussing the impacts of climate change on the logperch in the biological opinion and no mention of climate change in connection with the darter. The court then rejected the FWS’s arguments that the logperch and darter models used in the analysis implicitly accounted for climate change as “impermissible post hoc rationalizations.” The Fourth Circuit further found that even had the FWS articulated the modeling rationale, the analysis would be arbitrary and capricious. The Fourth Circuit also found more generally that the FWS failed to adequately evaluate the environmental baseline and cumulative effects on the logperch and darter but rejected other arguments made by the petitioners.
Decision
03/19/2021
Final response brief filed by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC.
Brief